I love it! More of the "buy-your-own-camera" mind set as an alternative to buying stock or hiring pros. In our long experience that's actually been good for our business. They spend lots of money on a camera and still get mediocre to poor results. Sooner or later they come back to us with their tail between their legs and a better understanding of why our fees are so high. Thank you Mr. Chan!!!! Short term chill on our business, but long term bonus.
This is the notable content for me in his whole spew:
"Make sure they understand that you are they are working for hire and that you will have full ownership and rights to the photos.
Professional photographers can be expensive depending on what you want and who you use. For these folks, I recommend bartering with them for exchange of services if you have talents in your profession. I find many professional photographers finicky. They will sometimes not give you full ownership or rights of the photo even though you paid them to take a photo. They are quite protective and their thinking is aligned to many in the stock photo industry. Admittedly, this is a broad generalization and based only on my experience. I am simply not optimistic that you will get good value from a professional photographer but it certainly does not hurt to try and negotiate with them."
Licensing fees are standard. You own the photo, whether or not someone hired you to take it. That was established in court a long time ago. Heck, even National Geographic long maintained that they owned the photos their staff photographers took, but now they're "back paying" those same photographers for subsequent use of the photos after first publication.
We charge licensing fees for all the photos we're hired to take. And if a client doesn't like it, fine. Hire another photographer. Licensing fees are based on usage, just as with stock photography. And we're not talking small change for the licenses. The most recent I negotiated was for $7k--- over and above the similar amount we were paid to take the photos.
Don't read Mr. Chan's piece and assume that it's another nail in the coffin of stock photography and photo licensing. Quite the opposite. All the amateur shlock he publishes does nothing but create a more fertile environment for good photography. And as a matter of course, he'll be selling his camera to raise money for buying professional results.
Thanks, David! The link made my day. I needed a good laugh!
Posted by David Prichard on November 10, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Hank,
It seems the basis of Mr. Chan's complaint is that the cheap Indian web design company hired perloined some images from Getty and they want him rather than the design company to pay.
From reading some of the material he has supplied it would seem some of the stock agencies are cracking down on the end user rather than chase Indian and Asian designers which might be more difficult from a legal view I suspect.
I liken it to when graphics software first came out and the boss loaded it on to the staff computer and got ransom notes instead of product brochures. You get what you pay for.
Posted by Kelly Rowe on November 11, 2009 at 11:51 AM
"I am simply not optimistic that you will get good value from a professional photographer but it certainly does not hurt to try and negotiate with them".
We professionals are such scallywags! He is a genuine Walmart/Olin Mills customer.
Posted by Scott Fricke on November 11, 2009 at 8:38 PM
I have to laugh when I read things like this article. It seems Mr. Chan believes he can do everyone's job better than they can. It also seems that Mr. Chan's website illegally used an image from Getty. Who does he think they are going to go after? How would Getty know who obtained the image for the website, it could very well be the "end-user" obtained the image and gave it to the web designer? Mr. Chan's website was also the "benefactor" of the use of the image. Seem's like Mr. Chan should invest his energy in getting his web designer to pay the bill. My favorite part, on his home page, is where he derogatorily called Getty Images campaign a "Scheme" simply because the letter was well-written.
Discussion
4 repliesOne publisher's take one the current state of the stock industry.
This is the notable content for me in his whole spew:
"Make sure they understand that you are they are working for hire and that you will have full ownership and rights to the photos.
Professional photographers can be expensive depending on what you want and who you use. For these folks, I recommend bartering with them for exchange of services if you have talents in your profession. I find many professional photographers finicky. They will sometimes not give you full ownership or rights of the photo even though you paid them to take a photo. They are quite protective and their thinking is aligned to many in the stock photo industry. Admittedly, this is a broad generalization and based only on my experience. I am simply not optimistic that you will get good value from a professional photographer but it certainly does not hurt to try and negotiate with them."
Licensing fees are standard. You own the photo, whether or not someone hired you to take it. That was established in court a long time ago. Heck, even National Geographic long maintained that they owned the photos their staff photographers took, but now they're "back paying" those same photographers for subsequent use of the photos after first publication.
We charge licensing fees for all the photos we're hired to take. And if a client doesn't like it, fine. Hire another photographer. Licensing fees are based on usage, just as with stock photography. And we're not talking small change for the licenses. The most recent I negotiated was for $7k--- over and above the similar amount we were paid to take the photos.
Don't read Mr. Chan's piece and assume that it's another nail in the coffin of stock photography and photo licensing. Quite the opposite. All the amateur shlock he publishes does nothing but create a more fertile environment for good photography. And as a matter of course, he'll be selling his camera to raise money for buying professional results.
Thanks, David! The link made my day. I needed a good laugh!
It seems the basis of Mr. Chan's complaint is that the cheap Indian web design company hired perloined some images from Getty and they want him rather than the design company to pay.
From reading some of the material he has supplied it would seem some of the stock agencies are cracking down on the end user rather than chase Indian and Asian designers which might be more difficult from a legal view I suspect.
I liken it to when graphics software first came out and the boss loaded it on to the staff computer and got ransom notes instead of product brochures. You get what you pay for.
We professionals are such scallywags! He is a genuine Walmart/Olin Mills customer.