Open

by damned truths

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

17

Absolutely disagree with TFuto, so wanted to chime in as well. The photo is not just your work, but more importantly your product. They are the buyer and you're the seller/supplier. You're standing in a world where everybody can make photos, so the supply of photos is incredible great and on top of that there is (nearly) no cost 'per copy sold'. Point in ...


13

You have all the rights to your photos, and you do whatever you please to do with it, including suing the hell out of them if they use it against your will. Never EVER go into an argument about the value of your photo. You set the price, and that's it. Either they accept it or not. Do not react to any further comments from them. Especially, if that is a TV ...


8

You call the 3-4 biggest news organizations in the country (no point going for smaller players because they have less money) and get them to bid against each other. News have a very short shelf life, do everything fast and finish the deal before the evening news. On the other hand, if it's something that will be reused for a long time license it ...


8

Don't sell a license for less than you think it is worth, but also carefully consider what it is worth. If they are asking for a single use license for one live airing for background usage, $50 might not be too far out of line for a stock photo usage. If they aren't asking for re-print rights or even something they will be using as a major portion of the ...


7

I have experience with a slight subset of this question. I created a YouTube video that went somewhat viral(1.6 Million views currently). At least in my case, everyone that wanted to copy and steal it, did. I found it incredibly difficult to protect my copyright. I had to go so far as to hire a lawyer to protect my interests on YouTube. One company in ...


7

Well, Getty isn't really microstock, they're probably the king of stock photography in general. The only thing I would be reluctant about with Getty is some recent behavior around their treatment of longtime artistic photographers under contract. So, I think Getty is counting on good amateur photographers being excited about possibly getting published, ...


5

Lighting off the camera is going to be a distinct help, but you probably should be aware of a few things in doing so: Hotshoe flashes are small lights, so you want some diffusion if possible. This can be an umbrella or even your own homemade reflector that you point the flash at. Anything that softens and spreads the light so that the source is not ...


5

I would have a simple agreement that is electronically signed stating the permission and use for your photo. That way both parties are covered and there is no later issue of "he said - she said." It was clearly stated in writing. A service like this is available for electronic signing. Here are a couple sites that may help you along with the agreement. I ...


4

They are being predatory. You don't have to license anything to them. I would turn that down, and I would tell them to have fun finding usable photography from someone willing to work that cheap, and to come talk to me again when they wanted to pay pro rates. It's not worth your time to waste time on this stuff. That said, a couple of other notes. You ...


4

If you say that the picture is for non-commercial use only then it's for non-commercial use only. If you have a signed page stating this than the other person can't say he didn't know the picture is for non-commercial use only. But, if that person is a jerk and uses the photo for commercial purposes anyway, what are you going to do? based on your comment ...


4

I'd suggest: Stock photography: take a photo, put it online, and forget about it, until the cash comes in. Then simply fill in your tax return at the end of year with the total amount you've made. The problem is that the stock photo market is saturated these days, so your photos will need to be exceptional. However, it's probably the simplest way to make ...


3

Just a little pointer from Europe. In Europe a verbal contract has the same value as any written contract. I would assume this is similar in most of the world. The reason people prefer a signed contract is because these are difficult to fight and you don't end up in a "I said" or "I didn't say" debate. Further, I've seen the suggestion to send an offending ...


3

Images used for news or artistic works do not normally require a model release. In the first case, it would be unrealistic to expect a newspaper, for example, to get model releases before publishing pictures of a large group of people in a protest. For artistic purposes, there are a large number of street photographers taking pictures of people on the ...


3

Disclaimer: I have NO professional experience at all. The best response is the response that you feel most comfortable with, and the response that most fits your purpose as a photographer. If you are an amateur who has other sources of income you may simply decide that you will sell it for the maximum that the company is willing to buy it for (or maybe ...


3

Sell the photo for what you think it is worth and not a dollar less. I certainly wouldn't sell a photo for $1*, maybe not even $50*... it'd cost more in paperwork than the sale gains. (* - well it would be GB Pounds in my case). You could always ask them to exchange the usage rights of the photo for (insert number of) seconds commercial slot. When they ...


3

Regardless of the request, the TV station was so disingenuous with you, I'd almost simply recommend walking away. That is, at first they only offered the minimum legal amount for a transaction ($1) then they increased their offer to $50, that they clearly had when they first spoke to you. Now they are crying poverty. I'd just say "No, thank you" OR .... ...


2

Depending upon how the television company came across your photo, they may have no idea whether you are a professional who expects to receive good money for your work, an amateur who lucked into a really nice photo and would be delighted just to see his work on television, or something in-between. Further, while it's possible that your photo was uniquely ...


2

basically, you can't. If you could, so could all of us, and then we'd all be doing it.


2

See my response about a similar topic of how to charge for a photo. "I was asked to design a calendar using my photos, what do I charge for the "art fee" for 12 photos, should my name and copyright be included?" I know some very popular professional storm chasers/weather photographers, and then let the news use there photos for free, as long as ...


2

These are three separate questions, which you should probably ask separately. However I think they've all been handled before. I think these three cover your questions: Can I publish photos taken in public legally? Is a model release needed for all commercial photo sales? How do I copyright my photographs? Basically, you can post or sell pictures (as ...


2

Legal questions are unique in that the best answers are usually more practically correct than technically correct. Based on the research I have done in the past you should be ok as long as it's a public place and if they don't keep you from taking the pictures you should be good to sell/publish/etc. However, even if you're technically in the clear that ...


1

You really will want to use off camera flash. A simple stand and umbrella will make the shots much better. Cheap and very transportable. The Strobist has tons of information on this. Read the Strobist 101 series. Especially http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101-traveling-light.html



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible