I've received a request by a artist wanting to paint one of my photos. I appreciate their asking first but they did mention they wanted permission in case they sold the painting. Any idea on priceing? Or what to do in a case like this? Thanks for any help you can give
I'm a hard liner on this, but others are more flexible.
Basically, the painter needs your permission to sell the painting. Period.
After that, prices are negotiable. I got sick of all the requests for free use of my photos for reference or direct copy (as I infered is the case in your request). I want half the income from the sale. If stock agencies are going to clip photographers for half the income for use of our photos, why shouldn't we get in on the deal when others use our work? Without your photo there would be no painting, so I don't think it's an unreasonable fee.
And yes, I get very few requests for free or licensed use my photos for paintings these days- Just the way I like it! Fair compensation for fair use, or don't bother. And surprisingly, once I drew my line in the sand the real pros painters don't mind and willingly pay my fee.
If the painter complains, suggest photographing their best painting for the same fee they are offering you, allowing you to sell prints of their painting. I think that will help them see the light!
I agree with most everything Hank has said here but I do see one problem with his last statement:
If the painter complains, suggest photographing their best painting for the same fee they are offering you, allowing you to sell prints of their painting. I think that will help them see the light!
Unfortunately many painters don't have an understanding of what it takes to create a good photo including a photo that documents their painting.
I guess part of the equation is what if in the end they just say "screw you" and do it without permission. Here I am in New Mexico and they're lets say off in Canada. I also don't know if I'm even dealing with an adult or a child with great expectations. I have sent a request for more info from the painter and I'm curious to see what I here. They found the photo on NPN so they might well be reading these posts also. As always it's a dilema
You're right Adam, and that's my reason for raising the point. When you as the photographer suggest making money off of THEIR painting, they get underestandably huffy. That's the starting point for a conversation, or as educators call it: "A teachable moment." Starting on that point, I've had very fruitful conversations with painters about fees and their use of my photos. We "only" need cameras to do our work, and they "only" need a brush and paints to do theirs. Yet they're coming to us because they haven't had any more luck with our tools than we would have with theirs.
Your dilema is the exact reason I've instituted my fee structure, Richard. I'm in Alaska, and the distance between me and clients is often measured in thousands of miles. A stiff fee structure scares the stuffing out of the amateurs, while the experienced pros don't think it's all that unreasonable. The amateurs are likely to go ahead and use your work no matter what you say, while the pros have to be concerned about the copyright issues and their own exposure.
I certainly hope both the amateurs and the pros are taking the time to read the NPN threads simply because they need to know more about what's involved in good photography, and hopefully recognize that just like their paintings, there's more to it than the tools.
On a related note, we generate a fairly substantial amount of income photographing art work for the artists, specifically for them to use when entering their art in shows and competitions. The pros have tried doing their own photography and failed to qualify, yet have a very high success rate using our photos. The experienced ones are more than happy to acknowledge our superior skills and equipment, pay for the process, and enjoy a very high rate of success in their entries.
I want to thank both of you for your comments and weighing in on this. I actually think what I may do is pass the link to this topic along to the painter. It might be interesting to see what, if any, opinion they have on all of this. You both have also explained the matter much better than I would have been able to. Thanks for your help and I'll let you know what happens.
Good idea Richard. It's an important question for artists of all sorts to get straight in their heads. I guess you could even include T-shirt "artists" in this one. We had to educate a local print shop after meeting one of our copyrighted photos walking down the street one day. The printer had only done one of ours for that client, and at his client's request, but I also know he had no qualms about printing photos out of magazines, album cover art or anything else on T-shirts upon request. Now he has qualms!
I received some emails from the artist, and with her permission, I'll post what we communicated after she had read the posts above:
Richard,
I checked out what was posted and I was just curious, I know photography is your kind of art, and I wouldn't want to turn your art into my art and eventually get into trouble for copyrighting, obviously that is why I wanted to ask. I usually paint from real things, so you eventually run out of interesting ideas, and I am taking some random pictures to paint, but I don't get around the world to get things to paint.. I am only 23 years old and my paintings are not well known, I have only sold two. I don't think that they would even make enough money to go two ways but thanks anyways. Your photography is still amazing. I am making a web site right now so I can post some of my work, so when I get somewhere with them, then I get into this kind of thing.
Thanks for your time.
TC
A few minutes later I received the post below.
Richard,
I guess I did start something, wow, I never know that photographers hated painters!!!!
I am very upset about what was said about me(or people like me) obviously yes I am an amateur painter, but I am still concerned with copywriting.
TC
I replied:
TC,
First photographers don't hate painters. Photography is a really tough business these days. Stock agencies keep cutting the percentage that they pay the photographer. The music business isn't the only one damaged by internet pirates. Most nature photographers have large amounts of money tied up in equipment and travel expenses to the locations where they take their images.
Copyright violations are rampant when it comes to photography. For every person like yourself who asks probably 100 just take. We find our photographs scattered all over the web and sometimes in print without every having been asked for permission to use them. If your trying to make a living photography isn't the easiest thing in the world to do. As you know, as a painter, whether you sell the painting or not the bills still keep on coming. Most people can't paint, those who can and do so well are looked up to . Everyone with $10 for a throw away camera can take a photograph. So most people don't value the time, effort, dedication and education it takes to become a good nature photographer.
What was said was not meant as a personal assault. Please understand that there are a lot of photographers who have been taken advantage of over the years. It would be like you painting a wonderful scene, something you were very proud of. Then going to one of those "Starving Artists" sales, that go show up around the country every few years, and finding a stack of 50 copies of your painting selling for $5.95 each or 3 for $10. To add insult to injury sometimes your painting will have "Joe Blow's" signature on it and not your own. Photographers deal with this type of thing everyday.
Sorry about the rant. Just out of curiosity would it be alright if I posted your message to me and my reply on the forum? I won't if you don't want me to but I think it would be educational for other photographers to see your reaction. If not I'll just post my response to you.
Regards,
Richard
Tagline:
I'm never afraid to use 20 words when one will do, but there it is. It affects us all photographer, painter etc.
Appropriatly the photo in question is titled "Cornered" in the Photo Art forum. I'll probably work out some compromise with TC, just because I believe she is honest in so far as she did ask for permission and since she participated in this educational experience with me. That will be the end of the free lunch line at this particular counter though.
Thanks again for your help with this.........Shaffer
Excellent response Richard, and thanks for posting this back. It reflects interesting points in common I've had with professional painters who make their living at it- and I think they are even more rare that photographers who manage to eke out a living. Painters have a devil of a time with amateurs mimicking their work, even copying it outright. And to make matters worse, sitting in a gallery and copying the works of a master is accepted, even encouraged in painting circles!
It's been my experience that well-schooled (or very experienced) painters and well-schooled (or very experienced) photographers have a whole lot in comman, and can find mutual respect, even friendship, pretty quickly. We share common interests, while approaching them with unique sets of tools. Along the same lines, it's been my experience that painters get a whole lot better education in school than we do- even in the best photography schools. They study things like color theory, composition, art history, and even business management that you almost never see in a photography school.
I'm good friends with several professional painters and several very advanced amateurs. I'm constantly picking their minds and they're constantly picking mine. That's a pretty good sign that once we take themselves and their work seriously, painters and photographers have more in common than differences.
I agree with your instinct to work with the painter, both to encourage and reward the honesty, and as an opportunity for you both to learn from each other.
As a final note (and you're not the only one in love with words ) if you ever have the opportunity, spend a day in the hills with a painter while you photograph. It's hard to say who will have more fun!
Discussion
8 repliesBasically, the painter needs your permission to sell the painting. Period.
After that, prices are negotiable. I got sick of all the requests for free use of my photos for reference or direct copy (as I infered is the case in your request). I want half the income from the sale. If stock agencies are going to clip photographers for half the income for use of our photos, why shouldn't we get in on the deal when others use our work? Without your photo there would be no painting, so I don't think it's an unreasonable fee.
And yes, I get very few requests for free or licensed use my photos for paintings these days- Just the way I like it! Fair compensation for fair use, or don't bother. And surprisingly, once I drew my line in the sand the real pros painters don't mind and willingly pay my fee.
If the painter complains, suggest photographing their best painting for the same fee they are offering you, allowing you to sell prints of their painting. I think that will help them see the light!
Unfortunately many painters don't have an understanding of what it takes to create a good photo including a photo that documents their painting.
Your dilema is the exact reason I've instituted my fee structure, Richard. I'm in Alaska, and the distance between me and clients is often measured in thousands of miles. A stiff fee structure scares the stuffing out of the amateurs, while the experienced pros don't think it's all that unreasonable. The amateurs are likely to go ahead and use your work no matter what you say, while the pros have to be concerned about the copyright issues and their own exposure.
I certainly hope both the amateurs and the pros are taking the time to read the NPN threads simply because they need to know more about what's involved in good photography, and hopefully recognize that just like their paintings, there's more to it than the tools.
On a related note, we generate a fairly substantial amount of income photographing art work for the artists, specifically for them to use when entering their art in shows and competitions. The pros have tried doing their own photography and failed to qualify, yet have a very high success rate using our photos. The experienced ones are more than happy to acknowledge our superior skills and equipment, pay for the process, and enjoy a very high rate of success in their entries.
Richard,
I checked out what was posted and I was just curious, I know photography is your kind of art, and I wouldn't want to turn your art into my art and eventually get into trouble for copyrighting, obviously that is why I wanted to ask. I usually paint from real things, so you eventually run out of interesting ideas, and I am taking some random pictures to paint, but I don't get around the world to get things to paint.. I am only 23 years old and my paintings are not well known, I have only sold two. I don't think that they would even make enough money to go two ways but thanks anyways. Your photography is still amazing. I am making a web site right now so I can post some of my work, so when I get somewhere with them, then I get into this kind of thing.
Thanks for your time.
TC
A few minutes later I received the post below.
Richard,
I guess I did start something, wow, I never know that photographers hated painters!!!!
I am very upset about what was said about me(or people like me) obviously yes I am an amateur painter, but I am still concerned with copywriting.
TC
I replied:
TC,
First photographers don't hate painters. Photography is a really tough business these days. Stock agencies keep cutting the percentage that they pay the photographer. The music business isn't the only one damaged by internet pirates. Most nature photographers have large amounts of money tied up in equipment and travel expenses to the locations where they take their images.
Copyright violations are rampant when it comes to photography. For every person like yourself who asks probably 100 just take. We find our photographs scattered all over the web and sometimes in print without every having been asked for permission to use them. If your trying to make a living photography isn't the easiest thing in the world to do. As you know, as a painter, whether you sell the painting or not the bills still keep on coming. Most people can't paint, those who can and do so well are looked up to . Everyone with $10 for a throw away camera can take a photograph. So most people don't value the time, effort, dedication and education it takes to become a good nature photographer.
What was said was not meant as a personal assault. Please understand that there are a lot of photographers who have been taken advantage of over the years. It would be like you painting a wonderful scene, something you were very proud of. Then going to one of those "Starving Artists" sales, that go show up around the country every few years, and finding a stack of 50 copies of your painting selling for $5.95 each or 3 for $10. To add insult to injury sometimes your painting will have "Joe Blow's" signature on it and not your own. Photographers deal with this type of thing everyday.
Sorry about the rant. Just out of curiosity would it be alright if I posted your message to me and my reply on the forum? I won't if you don't want me to but I think it would be educational for other photographers to see your reaction. If not I'll just post my response to you.
Regards,
Richard
Tagline:
I'm never afraid to use 20 words when one will do, but there it is. It affects us all photographer, painter etc.
Appropriatly the photo in question is titled "Cornered" in the Photo Art forum. I'll probably work out some compromise with TC, just because I believe she is honest in so far as she did ask for permission and since she participated in this educational experience with me. That will be the end of the free lunch line at this particular counter though.
Thanks again for your help with this.........Shaffer
It's been my experience that well-schooled (or very experienced) painters and well-schooled (or very experienced) photographers have a whole lot in comman, and can find mutual respect, even friendship, pretty quickly. We share common interests, while approaching them with unique sets of tools. Along the same lines, it's been my experience that painters get a whole lot better education in school than we do- even in the best photography schools. They study things like color theory, composition, art history, and even business management that you almost never see in a photography school.
I'm good friends with several professional painters and several very advanced amateurs. I'm constantly picking their minds and they're constantly picking mine. That's a pretty good sign that once we take themselves and their work seriously, painters and photographers have more in common than differences.
I agree with your instinct to work with the painter, both to encourage and reward the honesty, and as an opportunity for you both to learn from each other.
As a final note (and you're not the only one in love with words