Should I let a publisher use one of my photos for free?

July 14th, 2008 - 23:21 | 6 comments

A publisher wants to use one of my flickr photos in an upcoming book. It’s an image of a Scientology tent I saw in London a couple of years ago. The publishers emailed to ask permission to print it, and in return I’d get a free copy of the book. I’ve had two similar requests before, and I gave permission to both. But this time I don’t know what to do.

I know there’s a school of thought amongst photographers that this is taking away their livelihood. This argument generally applies to microstock websites, which have enormous image databases of every subject imaginable, and sell non-exclusive rights very cheaply. Some photographers claim microstock loses them business, as clients who would previously have commissioned specific shots can now get generic images for a fraction of the price.

But this isn’t a microstock shot, and I can’t imagine the publisher would have paid someone to go out and photograph a Scientology tent. Also, and I’m sorry if this sounds callous, I’m really not bothered about the death of old-and-busted business models. Times change. If someone wants a specific photo taken, they’ll still need a photographer. I don’t see that microstock is malicious or unfair to anybody, and there are approx. a million photographic career paths that aren’t affected by microstock. So I’m happy to reject that argument.

I guess I’m confused by the economic rights and wrongs. I mean, the photo was a quick snapshot into which I put no effort or work. But they clearly see some value in it, and I’m sure some would say it’s fair they pay me¹ if they’re going to make money off it. But thats somewhat mercenary. I can see the logic, and I don’t mind anyone else taking such a position, but I don’t see the moral duty to do so. I’m not going to get paid either way, and if it adds something to their book, what’s the harm? Like I said, I put no work into the picture, and I don’t see that it took any great learned skill to produce, so why shouldn’t I let them use it? I wouldn’t be losing out, as far as I can see. But maybe if I said no, they’d go pay someone else, so saying yes would be unfair on them. But that’s just stupid. Argh.

Also, they say it’s a book about a Scientologist of 22 years who’s now left the ‘religion’, so it sounds like an expose of some sort. If this is the case, great - I’m happy to help the anti-Scientologist cause. But what if it’s not? What if it’s actually pro-Scientology? I don’t want to help evil cults in the slightest.

There’s also no current mention of the photo being credited to me, which was the case in the other two books. Hmmm.

Anybody have a strong opinion either way?

which I’m sure they wouldn’t, but that’s irrelevant atm [↩]

-----

6 Responses to “Should I let a publisher use one of my photos for free?”

1 PooterGeek Jul 14th, 2008 at 11:58 pm

Always, always charge something. Make it a matter of professional pride. People won’t value your work if you don’t.

Today, the general manager of a venue rang me to ask if the could use two photos of a wedding I shot there. She started out trying to be cheeky. I told her that I charge for my services on principle. Then I suggested that they might want to promote me as a recommended photographer to push down the price. When the manager agreed to that, then I said they could use each shot for ten pounds. Straightaway, she asked if she might be able to use some more images at that price. Result!: free advertising, payment, and more business.
2 Andrew Jul 15th, 2008 at 12:23 am

Fair point. Thanks I was getting into a bit of a muddle there.
3 Nods Jul 15th, 2008 at 10:30 am

I would push for credit, a book should always have room for “Photo on pXX courtesy of Andrew West”
4 Lorraine Jul 15th, 2008 at 6:13 pm

1. Unless it is a project that really tugs at your heartstrings I would never give the rights away for free, and even then there would be serious restrictions on number of copies, reproductions and reruns.

2. Can the book be categorized as editorial? If not and you don’t have permission (releases) from those recognizable faces in your photo they may bring an action against you, the photographer, for unauthorized publication of their likeness in this publisher’s book and infringing their anonymity. There was a case a while back in Quebec and a girl’s unauthorized photo was published in an art magazine, some schoolmates found it and teased her. She sued, and won (small amount - I think $1000 from each photog and publisher) but they had to share court costs which would presumably be quite substantial.
5 Jim Pickerell Jul 15th, 2008 at 8:41 pm

I’m curious what you do to earn a living? Maybe it’s car repair. What if a significant number of the auto repairmen started working for free? Would what you had been doing be an “old-and-busted business model”? Would you be happy that people could not get their cars repaired for free and you had to go get a new job? Maybe you could get a job at McDonalds. But then, what if all the people passing out hamburgers started handing them out just because they liked to hang around McDonalds – and they didn’t expect to be paid for the 8 hours a day they spent there.

Please try not to be quite so cavalier about “old-and-busted business models”.

It may have only taken you 1/100th of second to shoot that picture, but you had to spend some time to go to that event. You may of even had a tube fare. For some reason you had to be inspired to take a picture of the Scientology tent rather than shooting all the other things you could have been shooting at the same time. And for some reason the publisher likes your picture better than the other 45 pictures on Flickr. (By the way there are no Scientology tent pictures on either Gettyimages.com or istockphoto.com.)

Whether you’re an amateur or a professional you deserve to be compensated for your efforts if someone wants to use a picture you took for commercial purposes. If I were you I’d ask the publisher how many copies of the book they intend to print and the retail price they intend to charge for it. These are questions any publisher would normally expect to answer. Assuming they are not going to print hundreds of thousands of copies of the book a reasonable price for such a usage would be $150.00. If you want to give him a break ask for $100.00 or $75.00. If he says the price is simply more than he can afford, point out what he expects to earn in gross sales of the book (gross units sold times price per copy). Maybe he is getting the people who run the presses to work for free. Maybe the people who manufacture the paper are giving it away because he is such a great guy.

It seems to me that the real question you have to answer for yourself is how much you want to be exploited by someone who is using your picture for commercial purposes, and who will put more money in his pocket if you give him the picture for free. Also, given the subject matter your next to last paragraph is very relevant. Are you for or against Scientology? You probably should ask some questions about the context in which your picture will be used.

And yes, I am a professional photographer. I earns part of my living from licensing rights to the images I produce.

Jim Pickerell
jim@scphotos.com
6 Andrew Jul 15th, 2008 at 9:08 pm

Lorraine - that’s an excellent point about model releases. Eek.

Jim - I appreciate the advice, thank you. Regarding old-and-busted-business-models, I think it’s clear I wasn’t referring to the general concept of getting paid for what you do. Clearly that would be bonkers. I meant it in regards to microstock specifically, and admittedly it didn’t particularly fit in with the discussion - it had been rattling around my brain for a while, and kinda slipped its way in. Again, thanks for taking the time to comment.

-----

Commenting Policy: Thoughts, observations, argument, debate and all other conversational wonderments are encouraged, but personal attacks or general trolling will result in your comment being deleted and your account/IP banned. If you're nice, however, you get strawberries.