[STOCKPHOTO] Fine Art Vs. Stock
Ed Hidden
a little more professional. I have a situation that seems a little unique,
but I'm sure it's something that some of you have probably come across a
number of times.
I tend to shoot my hobby. Bicycling. I got some pics this summer that I
thought would make some nice prints. So I'm looking to sell them as fine art
prints on my site and local retail (and perhaps having someone attending art
shows.)
Now, my question is, I've refrained from using these as stock images. as I
didn't want anyone to be able to get a hold of a "digital negative" of these
images. But I'm wondering... am I being overly paranoid? Shouldn't I just be
thinking that when someone is buying an art print from me. they are buying
more then the sum of it's parts. they are buying the printing knowledge and
expertise. instead of just an image?
How do many of you handle this? Do you keep your stock shots as ONLY stock?
Do you also have art prints that you will only use for that purpose? Or if
an image is commercially viable. is there nothing wrong with getting as much
as you can for it from as many sources as appropriate?
Just curious.
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.cfm#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.cfm
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Valery Rizzo
quite well. As far as selling them as stock images your intention is to
market and license them and if you have a specialty, bicycling, even
better. I also have certain images that are only fine art and not for
sale as stock.
Valery Rizzo
http://www.valeryrizzophotography.com
vri...@rcn.com
Rivaldo DoEspiritosanto
> How do many of you handle this? Do you keep your stock shots as ONLY
stock?
> Do you also have art prints that you will only use for that purpose? Or if
> an image is commercially viable. is there nothing wrong with getting as
much
> as you can for it from as many sources as appropriate?
Ed, I think I know what you mean. I am both a photographer and illustrator.
I have a mixed background, having done fine art in the past although I
currently only do commercial work. There were times when I'd ask myself
questions like the ones you raised. It is no longer an issue to me though.
Can you license an image as stock and still protect its value as fine art? I
guess it depends on many factors, but overall I'd say it is a challenge.
More so if you license it for commercial uses. Let's face it, once an image
is used to hawk things like body soap, automobiles or fat free yogurt, it's
kind of hard to make the image look "special". Not impossible, but very
difficult.
On the other hand it seems the less I hang on to each image the more
creative I get. I don't mind placing some of my artsier images in the stock
market. Doing so produces income which in turn allows me to produce more,
fresh new work. Then I can always pick a few dear ones to treat as fine art
if I wish, and control the kind of exposure they get. In fact, I also do the
opposite: every now and then I comb my "artsy" files for images that I
believe might have commercial potential and mercilessly put them to work.
Like I said, the more I let it go the more creative I seem to get.
Of course I'm not suggesting you do the same. The choice is yours. When it
comes to fine art it's all about your own philosophy of life, even if it
doesn't exactly make business sense. In this context whatever you choose to
do with your images is perfectly valid.
Rivaldo Does
doesimages.com
The address tras...@screencode.com is the object
of heavy spamming therefore it is barely monitored.
If you want to contact me in private, please see
doesimages.com for contact info.
Tina Manley
>Now, my question is, I've refrained from using these as stock images. as I
>didn't want anyone to be able to get a hold of a "digital negative" of these
>images. But I'm wondering... am I being overly paranoid? Shouldn't I just be
>thinking that when someone is buying an art print from me. they are buying
>more then the sum of it's parts. they are buying the printing knowledge and
>expertise. instead of just an image?
>
>
>Ed
I'm not sure what you mean by getting hold of a "digital
negative". Everything you shoot is copyrighted and should be registered
before you sell it as stock or as fine art. I sell my photos as both, but
they are all copyrighted and registered.
Tina
Tina Manley, ASMP
http://www.tinamanley.com
http://www.pdiphotos.com
http://www.agpix.com
http://www.newscom.com
http://www.americanphotojournalist.com