Posted by Tom Grey on February 6, 2007 at 12:22 PM
I'm a photo hobbyist (post on Avian here) and I often give permission for free use of my images to non-profits. Recently I got my first offer of pay for use of one of my images from a for-profit source. I don't think I'd ever find the income worth the hassle of keeping records, etc., especially as said income would no doubt be very small ;), so I'm not planning to charge for my images.
If it was just up to me, I'd give permission for free use with credit even to a for-profit user. Hey, eyeballs on my pictures give me pleasure! But I know a lot of my photographic betters are trying to make a living, or at least cover equipment costs, selling photos. And I think some buyers might prefer my OK images for free to better ones for $$. So I turned down the offer.
Do people have views on whether hobbyists should allow free use of their images, for the pleasure of having more people see their images?
Posted by John W. Wall on February 6, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Eyeballs on your pictures give you pleasure, but money in your pocket doesn't?
Instead of turning down the offer, try charging enough that it becomes worth the hassle of taking their money. There's really nothing to keeping records, especially if you're selling only one or two shots a year. As to second-guessing what buyers prefer, why even go there. Instead of turning down the request, you could have asked for $300 and let the chips fall where they may. Just my $.02.
Posted by David Bostedo on February 6, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Tom - You may want to take a look through the items on the HP Contest and Stock photography, which have spoken somewhat to what you are asking (sorry, I don't know how to make links) :
My own view is that you shouldn't worry about other photographers - if your pictures are good enough, and you want to charge nothing, that's your prerogative. You may be shortchanging yourself, but if you don't feel the need to charge, then don't. It's a competitive market place where everyone gets what they can/want - and you should to. If that's $0, then so be it. But you might want to find out what you could get.
You also seem to be assuming that your images are only OK - when in fact it's possible that they are better than what people are paying for - so you might really be able to get enough to make it worth it to you.
Just because an org is a not for profit doens't mean that they have limited funds. MANY such orgs are doing quite fine with their income. I have a better idea than giving your image away for free, which causes harm to the industry at large. Have them pay you and then simply donate the money back to them. Perhaps your employer has a matching program which will stretch those dollars even further.
As for record-keeping, there's nothing to it. The org will likely mail you a 1099 for your tax records, and jsut include this as part of your earned income for the year. It's not that hassle that you might think.
Posted by Richard Ditch on February 6, 2007 at 2:46 PM
I'm very careful who I grant free use of my images to these days. I get unsolicited hits from my old web site almost weekly, and it amazes me how many people think photographers should just give away their work. If its for a genuine educational use (a school project, or maybe a grade school teacher putting together some class materials) I'll grant use. If its a real not-for-profit with volunteer staff and a cause I beleive in, then I'm happy to help them. But if it is a for-profit group or commercial use then my philosophy is - professional quality images should receive professional level payment.
Basically, if there's paid staff, an advertising budget, payment for printing and distribution, etc, then why should the photographer be the only one not being paid?
If the user counters with "I'll just ask someone else who will be happy to get only a credit line," I tell them fine.
It's your photography, you can do what ever you want with it. I am completely opposed to the notion that hobbyists should prop up a market for the benefit of professionals. Isn't that sort of like opposing monogamy because it hurts the prostitution business?
Pete D.
quick, the Nomex suit
Posted by Tom Webster on February 6, 2007 at 4:51 PM
I've said this before and I'll say it again...and I know this won't win me any friends...your photography is your property. Do with it what makes you comfortable. You have no responsibility, morally or ethically, to bear the burden of "supporting the industry" regardless of how many professional photographers will try to lay this guilt trip on you.
The photography industry is now facing a business situation in which supplies outstrip the demands. It is up to the individual professional photographers to create a business plan to deal with this industry change or perish. For the most part, I am hearing mostly whining, sniveling, and finger-pointing from many professional photographers rather than those photographers putting forth efforts to be more competitive in an increasingly competitive market. Too many professionals are using the excuse that amateurs are "hurting the industry" and that amateurs should charge professional prices to "protect the industry". In reality, these professional photographers want amateurs to support the professional's own income. Sorry. Adapt or perish, just like any industry.
Tom, if you don't want to charge for the use of your photography then don't. You are under no obligation to support anybody else's agenda. I, for one, will support any decision you make regarding marketing your own images...and I shoot for profit.
Posted by Richard Wong on February 6, 2007 at 4:57 PM
True you can do whatever you want with your photos, but I just don't see any pleasure in getting only a credit while someone else profits from the use of your photo unless there's some special cause that you really believe in. I'd be embarrased with myself knowing that. if I wanted more people to recognize me for my photos, then I'd be posting my photos on Flickr and every other photo site on the net.
if you're worried about keeping records. it's much simpler to keep track when you only sell one or two photos per year as opposed to dozens or hundreds.
Thanks, folks, for the thoughtful responses -- as I might have expected, no consensus ;)
I'm probably the unusual case, but I have no thoughts of being even semi-professional. I'm about to retire, I have enough money for all my needs, and I really look forward to having no business dealings whatever. But I don't want to contribute to messing up someone else's business, especially photographers whose work I really respect and who are trying to support themselves and their families while devoting full time to creating more of the work that gives pleasure to me and many others.
On the other hand, hey, yes, I really do like to have other people see my pictures! It may be a petty pleasure, but for me, it's a real one!
I don't think the issue is really one of free market principles -- I'm not an aspiring competitor. I know I have every right to give the images away if I feel like it, but the question is whether I should feel like it, after I think about the consequences pro and con.
I read the thread on the HP contest, and found it very interesting -- but that's more about semi-pros (for whom a chance at $1000 for full rights is a good price) and pros (who couldn't make a living at those rates.) I'm lucky enough to be able to go on being a pure amateur, not interested in making money (the kind of money I'd have a chance of making, that is!) on my photography.
Posted by David Bostedo on February 6, 2007 at 6:10 PM
The issue for you isn't about free market principals, Tom. It sounds like you've got it narrowed down to a personal choice.
But the issue of "hurting" other photographers by giving away images is what is driving your choice - and that DOES involve free market ideals (as Tom Webster stated). The market (granted, I'm no where NEAR an expert on this) is beginning to be flooded by good amateur photographers who are willing to give images away. If you want to slow down the change in the business model by trying to charge some price, that's great. It's what you believe in. But I believe that you're only slowing it down, not preventing it. And you're caving to pressure that I find offensive.
Posted by Terry Sohl on February 6, 2007 at 7:19 PM
My views on the subject changed a few years ago. I'd not been in photography long, but was having the time of my life working on my photography and my website. I was contacted by someone wanting to use a photo for a painting. At the time, I was always flattered when someone liked my work, so gave the photo to the person for free. Here's what was produced from that photo:
Tom, Nice of you to think about others before simply giving your work away. When asked, which I often am to give free use of my images I ask the person doing the asking if they are getting paid. I don't think I've ever had one say they were not. When I ask them if they were getting paid for their work why shouldn't I they usually have no answer. I do give free use occasionally to local non profits but if the work is being done by paid staff I pretty much always turn them down. Just doesn't make sense to me and actually kind of find it an insult that they think they should be paid for their efforts but I shouldn't. Just my opinion.
Jim wrote: "Just doesn't make sense to me and actually kind of find it an insult that they think they should be paid for their efforts but I shouldn't."
Jim, I think it is called 'greed'. Some orgaizations and corporations want a free lunch. Just my opinion.
I've just taken a job in a related vocation. Unfortunately costs, largely travel, and depreciating prices, in my local market have proven to be obstacles to making any sort of living.
While I will continue to shoot and submit, it again comes down to ones term of 'professional.' As the bulk of my income will not be through photography does that render my experience gone and make me a hobbyist? Don't think so.
I don't fully agree with Tom Webster. While supply does exceed demand, I'm of the opinion the supply of really good work doesn't. A number of people here have noted, clients approach them because they can't find work that suits their needs in stock.
In talking with one of the semi-pros locally, he had sold all rights to four print images and one web for $500.00. As he put it, it buys him a tank of fuel oil. Should I do some work on the side I won't sell for those rates. It is a business decision, not one of pride. In maintaining a supply of high end equipment it is just selling myself short.
It is not the hobbyist who is a worry. It is the client who expects high end work at hobbyist rates. And why work with them unless you fancy bankruptcy?
I am completely opposed to the notion that hobbyists should prop up a market for the benefit of professionals. Isn't that sort of like opposing monogamy because it hurts the prostitution business?
Now I am really hurt. Just cuz I don't charge, doesn't mean my photography has to be compared to monogamy!
Posted by Mel Ladewig on February 6, 2007 at 9:23 PM
I should add a little about 1099s since I handle their creation as part of my job. I run the financial software for the government I work for and consulted for private sector and government before I started this job.
You will only get a 1099 if you an individual doing business, or an LLC or LLP and you've done more than $600 in business with a customer during a tax year. If it is under $600, you are supposed to track that information and claim the income yourself . They'll most likely send you a 1099 MISC. When you are doing your taxes, if you use software, it will prompt you to enter this info. It really won't be a big hassle for you at all and is nothing to be afraid of.
Another thing to consider is if your business is doing well enough that you want to register it with the state, you can usually buy supplies used to create a product for sale without paying sales tax at the time you purchase the supplies if they are used to produce works that you will sell. If they are for internal use, then you would be required to pay use tax, which is like sales tax and it might be easier to just pay the sales tax up front. Also many frame shops seem to offer a 50% discount if you present your business license at the time the work is done, and this could save you money on framing or framing supplies.
Tom, I'm alot like you. I enjoy photography for myself and I enjoy giving gifts of my work to friends and family. I know that I am capable of creating work of the same quality as I see in some galleries and that with time behind the shutter I could get much better. But photography is unlikely to pay me what I get paid for my day job, which I also like to do. I could take some of my effort and direct it towards marketing my photography for sale, but I'm afraid that to do so would take away from what I really enjoy (taking and processing pictures). Ask any pro photographer what it takes to make a successful business out of it and they will tell you that it is 90% marketing and 10% photography or something like that. Don't get me wrong. I really admire and am to certain degree envious of the NPN members who make a full time career of photography, but I wouldn't leave the work that I do. As far as getting paid for my images, I'd take the money if someone were offering it.
Posted by Tom Grey on February 6, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Yeah, like Cindy, I have to comment on Terry's object of charity too. Knowing Terry's work, I am sure I'd rather hang the original photograph on my wall than the painting the guy did from it, even if the painter were giving it away for free.
Does anyone really pay those prices for that stuff?
Posted by Darwin Wiggett on February 7, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Hey, I am all for freedom and allowing folks to do what ever it is they want. If you want to give your photos away so lots of eyes can see them just set up a website where you offer free high res downloads (the ultimate in Royalty Free photo usage!). If other people are threatened or offended by your behaviour that is their problem not yours. Secure professional photographers won't be threatened by people who do this.
It is a free marketplace, you are free to do whatever brings you pleasure including giving away your work so more people can see what you do. Just beware of the scenario that Mr. Webster talks about above. If suddenly you see your photo being used in a manner that is making another person using it tons of money, then don't complain about unfair treatment. Or if your photos become part of a company or organization that you don't want to be associated with then don't complain. I have had a photo of mine used for a cigarette packet - my stock agency sold them the rights, I was not thrilled but at least I got paid big bucks to help ease my 'unease'
Feel free to give away your photos and take pleasure in seeing them used and seen by others, but be aware that the practice may come back to bite you a time or two if you refuse to control where the photos go (the key is controling usage even if it is free IMO).
Darwin
Posted by Jim Erhardt on February 7, 2007 at 10:06 AM
When to charge and what to charge...discussions such as this one can provide insight. I also agree that while "tradional pricing guidelines" are a good starting point, it should ultimately be up to the individual photographer to make the decision without it being called into question by others.
Posted by Darwin Wiggett on February 7, 2007 at 10:12 AM
I agree Jim, there is too much of "if you don't behave the same way I would, you are wrong" attitudes out there. All you can do is monitor your own behaviour and let other people do what they feel is correct for them (and if you don't think this way, then you are wrong )
Posted by Terry Sohl on February 7, 2007 at 10:19 AM
Jim:
"It should ultimately be up to the individual photographer to make the decision without it being called into question by others."
Amen. Why I would now never dream of giving my photos away to for-profit groups, Tom is in a unique situation. He's stated he is retiring soon, enjoys seeing his photography being used, and after retirement doesn't want to ever again after worry about the financial hassles of tracking even a part-time photography business.
To me, Tom answered his own question. If that's how you feel, then by all means give the photo away and never look back.
Posted by Tom Grey on February 7, 2007 at 10:22 AM
As far as knowing nothing about the artist, hey, thanks to Terry, we've seen his presentation of his work on the web! If he can charge those prices and get people to pay them, all power to him -- no accounting for tastes -- but online commentary from uncredentialed hobbyist bird photographers goes with the territory.
By the way, back to Terry's original post, I've had a nice relationship with a painter in the duck stamp genre -- I let him use my photos as a basis for his paintings, and he sends me prints. I like his work a lot better than Wolk's, though he's getting much less for it. My opinion only, of course, and to repeat, no accounting for tastes.
Posted by Tom Webster on February 7, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Darwin Wiggett wrote:
Feel free to give away your photos and take pleasure in seeing them used and seen by others, but be aware that the practice may come back to bite you a time or two if you refuse to control where the photos go (the key is controling usage even if it is free IMO).
Darwin, I couldn't agree with you more! Our photos are our property to do with as we please, however, we do have the ultimate responsibility as to how they are used. Paid or not, it is always to our best interests and the best interests of the public, to ascertain to the best of our abilities that our photos are not being used in illegal or slanderous campaigns. I sell combinations of royalty-free, managed rights, and full rights useages of my images. All of my contracts include verbiage to the effect that the images for which the rights are purchased will not be used in illegal or slanderous manners. Believe it or not, this has actually cost me some sales!
Secure professional photographers won't be threatened by people who do this.
Amen, Darwin. I wish more professional photographers would adopt this attitude.
Posted by Terry Sohl on February 7, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Tom,
I've got a similar working relationship with a part-time artist who paints unique nature scenes, pets, etc. on rocks. Her prices are ridiculously cheap for the very nice work she does...as low as $35 for a beautiful painted scene 6x9" rock...but when first contacting me, she was worried about MY compensation for using my photos as reference material!
Our deal? She sent me a painted rock with a pheasant pair on it, in exchange for use of several of my photos. No money exchaned hands, but I was happy with the deal, and have a beautiful work of art sitting on my desk!
My website (my other passion) gets a lot of hits, and I get a number of photo requests a week through the site. At least 80% of inquiries ask for photos for free, which I now only do for educational purposes, and some non-profits. I do get contacted by a fair number of artists, and have learned my lesson from William Wolk! Just yesterday, I was contacted by an artist who wanted a raven portrait to use as reference. She stated she would sell the painting in her store for between $300-$500.
So what to charge? In my mind, the reference photo used for a painting is only a tiny portion of the effort. She is the one using her painting skills to translate the photo to canvas, and I respect that skill enough to know that my photo only plays a small part in her work. I've just taken to charging artists 10-15% of the final painting sale price, and would feel guilty charging more. It was a 5 minute transaction, with her sending me $50, and me sending her the digital photo and a usage agreement. Is my price low? I have no idea what other folks would charge, but given her usage, her painting sale price, and my minimal time investment, I'm happy, she's happy, so it's win-win.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on February 7, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Note - thread edited for clarity and focus on the OP's point/question.
Tom,
To your original question
"Do people have views on whether hobbyists should allow free use of their images, for the pleasure of having more people see their images?"
My view is that, you certainly should feel free to give your work away to enjoy people seeing it as long as understand all of the issues and it sounds like you do.
To me it has nothing to do with what was going on with the HP "contest".
A comment on the whole not for profit issue as well. The heads of many of the larger nonprofit organizations make significantly more money working for the nonprofit than I make on my regular job. I am not being critical of them for getting what they can, I am just saying that a nonprofit that has a head (CEO?) making six digits can afford to pay what the picture is worth. That said, I agree the photos are your property to do with as you wish, I have a hard time believeing I shouldn't get paid for my work when the CEO is making over 100K.
RP
Posted by Mike Deasy on February 11, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Before you sell an occasional picture, be sure to check what that sale might do to the insurance on your camera gear. As far as I know, all of the photography equipment riders, or other special policies, issued as an adjunct to homeowner's insurance prohibit commercial activity. When you apply, or renew, the question that may trigger this is something about selling images. You avoid this problem through commercial policies or insurance through NANPA at a somewhat greater expense. Maybe the pricing guideline is to at least breakeven on the new insurance policy you will be purchasing.
Discussion
28 repliesIf it was just up to me, I'd give permission for free use with credit even to a for-profit user. Hey, eyeballs on my pictures give me pleasure! But I know a lot of my photographic betters are trying to make a living, or at least cover equipment costs, selling photos. And I think some buyers might prefer my OK images for free to better ones for $$. So I turned down the offer.
Do people have views on whether hobbyists should allow free use of their images, for the pleasure of having more people see their images?
Instead of turning down the offer, try charging enough that it becomes worth the hassle of taking their money. There's really nothing to keeping records, especially if you're selling only one or two shots a year. As to second-guessing what buyers prefer, why even go there. Instead of turning down the request, you could have asked for $300 and let the chips fall where they may. Just my $.02.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=14815&b=va&st=80&la=3002&ph=94&sid=17794&u=17863
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=14776&b=um&st=0&la=321&ph=11&sid=18281&u=18281
My own view is that you shouldn't worry about other photographers - if your pictures are good enough, and you want to charge nothing, that's your prerogative. You may be shortchanging yourself, but if you don't feel the need to charge, then don't. It's a competitive market place where everyone gets what they can/want - and you should to. If that's $0, then so be it. But you might want to find out what you could get.
You also seem to be assuming that your images are only OK - when in fact it's possible that they are better than what people are paying for - so you might really be able to get enough to make it worth it to you.
As for record-keeping, there's nothing to it. The org will likely mail you a 1099 for your tax records, and jsut include this as part of your earned income for the year. It's not that hassle that you might think.
Basically, if there's paid staff, an advertising budget, payment for printing and distribution, etc, then why should the photographer be the only one not being paid?
If the user counters with "I'll just ask someone else who will be happy to get only a credit line," I tell them fine.
It's your photography, you can do what ever you want with it. I am completely opposed to the notion that hobbyists should prop up a market for the benefit of professionals. Isn't that sort of like opposing monogamy because it hurts the prostitution business?
Pete D.
quick, the Nomex suit
The photography industry is now facing a business situation in which supplies outstrip the demands. It is up to the individual professional photographers to create a business plan to deal with this industry change or perish. For the most part, I am hearing mostly whining, sniveling, and finger-pointing from many professional photographers rather than those photographers putting forth efforts to be more competitive in an increasingly competitive market. Too many professionals are using the excuse that amateurs are "hurting the industry" and that amateurs should charge professional prices to "protect the industry". In reality, these professional photographers want amateurs to support the professional's own income. Sorry. Adapt or perish, just like any industry.
Tom, if you don't want to charge for the use of your photography then don't. You are under no obligation to support anybody else's agenda. I, for one, will support any decision you make regarding marketing your own images...and I shoot for profit.
if you're worried about keeping records. it's much simpler to keep track when you only sell one or two photos per year as opposed to dozens or hundreds.
I'm probably the unusual case, but I have no thoughts of being even semi-professional. I'm about to retire, I have enough money for all my needs, and I really look forward to having no business dealings whatever. But I don't want to contribute to messing up someone else's business, especially photographers whose work I really respect and who are trying to support themselves and their families while devoting full time to creating more of the work that gives pleasure to me and many others.
On the other hand, hey, yes, I really do like to have other people see my pictures! It may be a petty pleasure, but for me, it's a real one!
I don't think the issue is really one of free market principles -- I'm not an aspiring competitor. I know I have every right to give the images away if I feel like it, but the question is whether I should feel like it, after I think about the consequences pro and con.
I read the thread on the HP contest, and found it very interesting -- but that's more about semi-pros (for whom a chance at $1000 for full rights is a good price) and pros (who couldn't make a living at those rates.) I'm lucky enough to be able to go on being a pure amateur, not interested in making money (the kind of money I'd have a chance of making, that is!) on my photography.
But the issue of "hurting" other photographers by giving away images is what is driving your choice - and that DOES involve free market ideals (as Tom Webster stated). The market (granted, I'm no where NEAR an expert on this) is beginning to be flooded by good amateur photographers who are willing to give images away. If you want to slow down the change in the business model by trying to charge some price, that's great. It's what you believe in. But I believe that you're only slowing it down, not preventing it. And you're caving to pressure that I find offensive.
http://www.williamwolk.com/details.php?id=63
I too like having my photos in demand. What I will not stand for is being taken advantage of.
Jim, I think it is called 'greed'. Some orgaizations and corporations want a free lunch. Just my opinion.
-PB
I've just taken a job in a related vocation. Unfortunately costs, largely travel, and depreciating prices, in my local market have proven to be obstacles to making any sort of living.
While I will continue to shoot and submit, it again comes down to ones term of 'professional.' As the bulk of my income will not be through photography does that render my experience gone and make me a hobbyist? Don't think so.
I don't fully agree with Tom Webster. While supply does exceed demand, I'm of the opinion the supply of really good work doesn't. A number of people here have noted, clients approach them because they can't find work that suits their needs in stock.
In talking with one of the semi-pros locally, he had sold all rights to four print images and one web for $500.00. As he put it, it buys him a tank of fuel oil. Should I do some work on the side I won't sell for those rates. It is a business decision, not one of pride. In maintaining a supply of high end equipment it is just selling myself short.
It is not the hobbyist who is a worry. It is the client who expects high end work at hobbyist rates. And why work with them unless you fancy bankruptcy?
Dave
Now I am really hurt. Just cuz I don't charge, doesn't mean my photography has to be compared to monogamy!
You will only get a 1099 if you an individual doing business, or an LLC or LLP and you've done more than $600 in business with a customer during a tax year. If it is under $600, you are supposed to track that information and claim the income yourself
Another thing to consider is if your business is doing well enough that you want to register it with the state, you can usually buy supplies used to create a product for sale without paying sales tax at the time you purchase the supplies if they are used to produce works that you will sell. If they are for internal use, then you would be required to pay use tax, which is like sales tax and it might be easier to just pay the sales tax up front. Also many frame shops seem to offer a 50% discount if you present your business license at the time the work is done, and this could save you money on framing or framing supplies.
Tom, I'm alot like you. I enjoy photography for myself and I enjoy giving gifts of my work to friends and family. I know that I am capable of creating work of the same quality as I see in some galleries and that with time behind the shutter I could get much better. But photography is unlikely to pay me what I get paid for my day job, which I also like to do. I could take some of my effort and direct it towards marketing my photography for sale, but I'm afraid that to do so would take away from what I really enjoy (taking and processing pictures). Ask any pro photographer what it takes to make a successful business out of it and they will tell you that it is 90% marketing and 10% photography or something like that. Don't get me wrong. I really admire and am to certain degree envious of the NPN members who make a full time career of photography, but I wouldn't leave the work that I do. As far as getting paid for my images, I'd take the money if someone were offering it.
Does anyone really pay those prices for that stuff?
It is a free marketplace, you are free to do whatever brings you pleasure including giving away your work so more people can see what you do. Just beware of the scenario that Mr. Webster talks about above. If suddenly you see your photo being used in a manner that is making another person using it tons of money, then don't complain about unfair treatment. Or if your photos become part of a company or organization that you don't want to be associated with then don't complain. I have had a photo of mine used for a cigarette packet - my stock agency sold them the rights, I was not thrilled but at least I got paid big bucks to help ease my 'unease'
Feel free to give away your photos and take pleasure in seeing them used and seen by others, but be aware that the practice may come back to bite you a time or two if you refuse to control where the photos go (the key is controling usage even if it is free IMO).
Darwin
"It should ultimately be up to the individual photographer to make the decision without it being called into question by others."
Amen. Why I would now never dream of giving my photos away to for-profit groups, Tom is in a unique situation. He's stated he is retiring soon, enjoys seeing his photography being used, and after retirement doesn't want to ever again after worry about the financial hassles of tracking even a part-time photography business.
To me, Tom answered his own question. If that's how you feel, then by all means give the photo away and never look back.
By the way, back to Terry's original post, I've had a nice relationship with a painter in the duck stamp genre -- I let him use my photos as a basis for his paintings, and he sends me prints. I like his work a lot better than Wolk's, though he's getting much less for it. My opinion only, of course, and to repeat, no accounting for tastes.
Here's his work -- http://www.originalbirdart.com/stewart.htm .
Darwin, I couldn't agree with you more! Our photos are our property to do with as we please, however, we do have the ultimate responsibility as to how they are used. Paid or not, it is always to our best interests and the best interests of the public, to ascertain to the best of our abilities that our photos are not being used in illegal or slanderous campaigns. I sell combinations of royalty-free, managed rights, and full rights useages of my images. All of my contracts include verbiage to the effect that the images for which the rights are purchased will not be used in illegal or slanderous manners. Believe it or not, this has actually cost me some sales!
Amen, Darwin. I wish more professional photographers would adopt this attitude.
I've got a similar working relationship with a part-time artist who paints unique nature scenes, pets, etc. on rocks. Her prices are ridiculously cheap for the very nice work she does...as low as $35 for a beautiful painted scene 6x9" rock...but when first contacting me, she was worried about MY compensation for using my photos as reference material!
Our deal? She sent me a painted rock with a pheasant pair on it, in exchange for use of several of my photos. No money exchaned hands, but I was happy with the deal, and have a beautiful work of art sitting on my desk!
My website (my other passion) gets a lot of hits, and I get a number of photo requests a week through the site. At least 80% of inquiries ask for photos for free, which I now only do for educational purposes, and some non-profits. I do get contacted by a fair number of artists, and have learned my lesson from William Wolk! Just yesterday, I was contacted by an artist who wanted a raven portrait to use as reference. She stated she would sell the painting in her store for between $300-$500.
So what to charge? In my mind, the reference photo used for a painting is only a tiny portion of the effort. She is the one using her painting skills to translate the photo to canvas, and I respect that skill enough to know that my photo only plays a small part in her work. I've just taken to charging artists 10-15% of the final painting sale price, and would feel guilty charging more. It was a 5 minute transaction, with her sending me $50, and me sending her the digital photo and a usage agreement. Is my price low? I have no idea what other folks would charge, but given her usage, her painting sale price, and my minimal time investment, I'm happy, she's happy, so it's win-win.
To your original question
"Do people have views on whether hobbyists should allow free use of their images, for the pleasure of having more people see their images?"
My view is that, you certainly should feel free to give your work away to enjoy people seeing it as long as understand all of the issues and it sounds like you do.
To me it has nothing to do with what was going on with the HP "contest".
RP