[STOCKPHOTO] Picture Search
piper lehman
odd that they do not mention the word 'licensing' anywhere on the
site as far as I can see. Anyone know what kind of business this is?
I am not considering it--a friend sent the link to my e-mail.
http://www.picturesearch.ltd.uk/
piper lehman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
Franz Waldhäusl
Dear Piper,
PictureSearch does not license images. It is a kind of middleman / plattform between clients and image libraries / agents / photographers.
Customers post image request on picturesearch.ltd.uk. These requests are forwared by e-mail to subscribed photographers / agencies which can upload thumbnail images for a particular request to Picturessearch.ltd.uk for review by the client.
Depending on your subscription at picturesearch.ltd.uk they either get 20% of the license fee for an image or an annual fee (check the web site for details).
Communication with Chris from PictureSearch is excellent. We are using his service since a couple of months and my impressions are quite positive.
With best wishes,
Franz
"piper lehman <pcwr...@attbi.com>" <pcwr...@attbi.com> wrote:Has anyone heard anything about this company/service? Seems a little
site as far as I can see. Anyone know what kind of business this is?
I am not considering it--a friend sent the link to my e-mail.
http://www.picturesearch.ltd.uk/
piper lehman
Ein Bild sagt mehr als 1000 Worte .....
.
bildagentur & pressefoto franz waldhäusl
siedlung baichberg 17, a-3332 rosenau
tel.: +43-(0)676-60.59.629
e-mail: age...@waldhaeusl.com
web: http://www.waldhaeusl.com
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Karen A. Wyle
links buyers and photographers with a 20% commission going to Picture Search
if the buyer wants the image. I just started and haven't had any sales.
Karen A. Wyle
cai none
dear friends:
I am not very familiarized with Picture Search and similar agencies. Really this system gets good sales for photographers?
regards.
David Laguillo
www.davidlaguillo.com
http://www.agefotostock.com/age/agewebfotografos.asp?lang=ingles&key1=DLA&key2=David+Laguillo
www.archimagen.com/davidlaguillo
www.rexinterstock.com
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Franz Waldhäusl
> similar agencies. Really this system gets good sales
> for photographers?
> David Laguillo
David,
PictureSearch is not an agency. You don't send them
your chromes or scans. Lets say that PictureSearch
collects image request from various contributing
customers. These requests are forwarded to
contributing photographers and agencies.
You can upload images which may fit the client need to
the PictureSearch website for review by the client.
Clients have the possibility to inform you wether the
image is not what they expected or if they want to buy
it.
The advantage for customers is that they can send an
image request to hundreds of photographers and
agencies by posting one single message on
PictureSearch.
For image suppliers its great because they receive
about additional twenty request a week.
If you get good sales out of this system depends if
you have the requested images on file. Just sign up at
PictureSearch as a commision based photographer (its
free) and check the image requests.
We signed up two months ago and made last week our
first sale using PictureSearch - and compared to
agents which didn't sell a single images over a period
of three years this is a really good performance. But
again, PictureSearch is not an agency - you have to
do the work, they just forward image requests to
photographers.
Feel free to contact me if you have further questions.
Regards,
Franz
----
Picture Agency Franz Waldhaeusl
e-mail: age...@waldhaeusl.com
web: http://www.waldhaeusl.com
Siedlung Baichberg 17
A-3332 Rosenau, Austria
Phone: +43-676-60.59.629
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
David Hoffman
>We signed up two months ago and made last week our
>first sale
Thank you for sharing this info Franz.
How many submissions of how many photographs did you make before you
got this sale? Would you mind telling us the market (book, advert?) &
the repro fee?
David Hoffman
--
__________________________________________________________
David Hoffman Photo Library
<http://www.hoffmanphotos.com>
phone +44 (0)20 8981 5041 fax +44 (0)20 8980 2041
Ed Verkaik
> The advantage for customers is that they can send an
> image request to hundreds of photographers and
> agencies by posting one single message on
> PictureSearch.
>
> For image suppliers its great because they receive
> about additional twenty request a week.
I've been monitoring them for a month on the "commission" setup and have
a few observations:
- most of the requests are unusual, hard to find, and appear to come
here after a client fails to locate the image by staandard means
- there are about 5-10 per week to me, based on my selection criteria
- the request is often brief or too open-ended to allow for a proper
search unless the subject requested is very specific
- uploading from an existing image db would be simple, but if you had to
scan a special selection I think it is a lot of work for what may be a
long shot
The main problem I see is that the free (commission only) service
removes the ability to discuss with clients what they really want. But
to get this, you'd need to pay their annual fee. So far I only saw one
request that was even close for us, and it was too vague to know for
sure what to send.
Ed Verkaik
David Hoffman
>I've been monitoring them for a month on the "commission" setup and have
>a few observations:
>- most of the requests are unusual, hard to find, and appear to come
>here after a client fails to locate the image by staandard means
>- there are about 5-10 per week to me, based on my selection criteria
>- the request is often brief or too open-ended to allow for a proper
>search unless the subject requested is very specific
>- uploading from an existing image db would be simple, but if you had to
>scan a special selection I think it is a lot of work for what may be a
>long shot
I've not posted anything about Picture Search as it is a while since
I tried it & I didn't want to criticise Barton's current setup on the
basis of old info. But Ed Verkaik's post seems to show that it still
has all the same shortcomings. This is a post that I sent to EPUK at
the beginning of this year.
David Hoffman
At 21:09 +0000 13/2/02, David Hoffman wrote:
>This has been going on & off for years. I tried it about 10+ years
>ago when it was purely postal & have had a couple of 3-6 month test
>runs since it became digital. I don't think I made any sales, the
>bulk of the requests were for very unlikely subjects or for projects
>with no money. The ones that I did have pics for either didn't reply
>or turned out to be too flakey to deal with. Even with the good
>publishers with sensible requests there will be loads of others also
>submitting (many at very low rates) so the odds against a sale on
>the best leads is less than 20:1. The rest are even less likely.
>
>My own take is that if Chris Barton really had faith in his ability
>to put buyers & sellers together he'd be working on a percentage
>deal. The fact that his business model isolates his income from the
>success of the participants makes me unwilling to put money into it.
>
>Here's a paste from the last time I tried it - judge for yourself
>but bear in mind that this was nearly 5 years ago. Maybe now it's
>brilliant!
>
>R510. TUE 12/8/97 Still need pic of QUEBEC CITY SHOWING FRENCH
>WRITING. Also: PEOPLE QUEUING FOR FOOD in RUSSIA/FORMER SOVIET BLOCK.
>Educational so tight budget
>Tamsin Miller
>HarperCollins Educational
>T0181 307 4297
>F0181 307 4822
>
>R509. TUE 12/8/97 U.S. CITY STREET SCENE 90-100 YEARS AGO with
>ELECTRIC UTILITY POLES on both sides of the street. This situation
>occurred before monopoly utility franchises were common, and
>resulted in a visual clutter as well as chaos in stringing wires.
>For use in Northern California Power Agency Annual Report.
>John Bassett
>A.D. Marketing
>1825 Los Robles Blvd.
>Sacramento
>CA 95838.
>T/F:(U.S.A.) (916) 922-2366.
>E-mail response preferred; jay...@bbs.macnexus.org
>
>R508. TUE 12/8/97 Urgent: pics of a VIVARIUM - glass tank for
>keeping ants in. Also : any PETS THAT LOOK LIKE THEIR OWNERS.
>Please phone to check still needed.
>Holly Whitelaw
>The Times
>T0171 782 5130/5165
>F0171 782 5449
>
>R507. FRI 8/8/97 Urgent: need pics to make composite image of HANDS
>CUPPED LIKE A HARBOUR WITH ROUGH SEA OUTSIDE AND CALM WATER INSIDE.
>Therefore need: ROUGH SEA, CALM SEA and CUPPED HANDS - FINGER TPS
>CLOSE TOGETHER.
>Also: SAND WITH LINES/RIPPLES IN IT, rough looking, pref. with
>smooth band through middle, like path.
>Patricia Cleary
>Advision
>T0171 341 6672
>F0171 373 0044
--
__________________________________________________________
David Hoffman Photo Library
<http://www.hoffmanphotos.com>
phone +44 (0)20 8981 5041 fax +44 (0)20 8980 2041
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wks photo
I noticed an ad in the local paper that a major rodeo was coming to our
area. Thinking this would be nice to add to my stock files. I drafted a
letter to the owner of the rodeo explaining what we do and that we would
like to photograph their event, and would be happy to provide him a
couple of images for his web site in return. Here is his reply.
Unfortunately, we have had too many experiences with freelance
photographers not delivering what they promised. Therefore, we charge a
$500 cash deposit before a photographer is allowed photo access. The
deposit is returned after we have had our choice of 10 photos at no
charge from proof sheets of everything the photographer shot. We are
allowed to use these photos for any purpose we wish. When the 10 photos
are in our hands, we return the $500 deposit.
Thank you for your interest.
I did answer his reply with a big no thanks.
Walter
Walter Shockley
Mt Vernon, Oh 43050
wsho...@columbus.rr.com
Gary Gaugler
got any takers to their warped theme. It actually
sounds like a new scam.
gg
Rick Becker-Leckrone
r.
Rick Becker-Leckrone
President
PictureNet Corporation
http://www.picturenetcorp.com
640 Paulson
Las Vegas, NV 89123
702 808-3182
Frans Rombout / Picture Partners
> Sounds like a good deal to me. What am I missing here?
Have you thought about the model and property releases Walter?
Regards,
Frans
David Hoffman
Telegraph newspapers from their library without telling or paying me.
They had all been downloaded from a site where the T&Cs specify a
default payment of £1,000 for such misuse. I invoiced at that rate
offering a fat discount for 28 day payment. I get on well with the
Sunday & Daily Telegraph & it all worked out fine, we talked, I gave
them a little more discount to feel good about & they paid up.
One pic had been used in the Weekly Telegraph & I called the editor,
Keith Jenkins. He told me quite firmly that they didn't pay for
photographs. I said how interesting that was & he explained that
anything used in any of the Telegraph papers was his to use without
restriction. Golly, says I. And what about the T&Cs & the licence
terms? "We have our own" says the Jenkins!
I've sent him a nice big cuddly invoice, he refused to pay, then he
sent GBP50 (inc vat), my turn to refuse. Now some unnamed exec is
offering GBP250 but I think they owe me more that.
Which leads to some questions:
Do your national newspaper stock sales include free reuse in weekly
or digest editions?
Do you know/check if they are being used like that?
Have any papers asked for such rights?
have you billed for such use?
I now know the Telegraph publishes a weekly edition & I know the
Guardian does - which others do this?
David Hoffman
ps I try to avoid cross posting but have also posted this to the
BAPLA list as the readership is so different, apologies to those who
get it twice.
--
__________________________________________________________
David Hoffman Photo Library
<http://www.hoffmanphotos.com>
phone +44 (0)20 8981 5041 fax +44 (0)20 8980 2041
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Boden
<wksphoto@c...> wrote:
> deposit is returned after we have had our choice of 10 photos
at no
> charge from proof sheets of everything the photographer shot.
We are
> allowed to use these photos for any purpose we wish. When
the 10 photos
> are in our hands, we return the $500 deposit.
> I did answer his reply with a big no thanks.
Good. This is a BAD deal. The "any purpose we wish" means
he can take the 10 best images and make them useless for
anything but RF. If you could restrict his usage it would be a
different story.
Rick Boden
mtom...@aol.com
In a message dated 12/17/02 10:19:15 AM, Ri...@blphoto.ca writes:
<<This is a BAD deal. The "any purpose we wish" means
he can take the 10 best images and make them useless for
anything but RF. If you could restrict his usage it would be a
different story>>
Basically,they're getting you to shoot for them and in a roundabout way having
you pay yourself.
Additionally,your $500 access fee won't likely allow you any unrestricted
usage
as the competitors will require individual releases.
Mark
henschel
In my book, it is an opening to be pursued. I have 3 levels of preset
arrangements for clients to choose from. I promote them as "specials". that
can be had. Not quite assignment, and not a rights giveaway either. Both
parties benefit, and I get some good stock images. Depending
on who I am hoping to work with, I charge a min. shooting fee and/or get
written unlimited access for two people (includes your assistant or
companion). The fee/access agreement is first a proposal, then a contract.
It includes a set number of images to be made available license free or with
limited license (usually non-exclusive commercial use). It spells out all
the usual, such as releases, included images, delivery of images, first
crack at additional images, additional licensing available, liability, etc..
In other words, they hire me!
Next time, I suggest you try to negotiate terms acceptable to you and
them. Ask what they need and want. Request list of image subjects they would
like to see covered. Perhaps they would want shots of employees doing their
job, to be presented to the employee as a holiday bonus (as an additional
service from you). To avoid any deposit, charge THEM one for your time, or
arrange referrals from others you have shot this way. If you have liability
coverage, say so. If you have a brochure or promo piece, include it in the
envelope. State time and place, or means of delivering the work after the
shoot is complete. In other words, offer your services in a business
proposal as you would an assignment. Be professional, not casual.
Many of these traveling businesses have photographers who work the shows
and have working agreements with the management. However, most business
owners actually like having professional photographers bring them new fresh
images.
Without an agreement, you can still take images that the paying public
would have access to taking, and you may still be able to obtain model
releases after the fact.
Valerie Henschel
----- Original Message -----
From: "wks photo" <wksp...@columbus.rr.com>
To: <STOCK...@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 6:08 PM
Michael Vitti
for sideline/baseline access. You, at least keep the film, which is king
still.
The model release thing sounds great, but understand your concern over the
$500 'deposit'
Mik
Rivaldo DoEspiritosanto
Think about it: how much would you charge to issue an all-rights, perpetual
license for 10 images? Now add $500 to that amount. Are you really willing
to pay this much to get access to a rodeo?
Walter, I'm glad to hear that your common sense has prevailed.
--Rivaldo Does
----- Original Message -----
From: "wks photo" <wksp...@columbus.rr.com>
Newsgroups: bit.listproc.stockphoto
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 6:50 PM
Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Shooting stock
> Thought you might enjoy this one.
(...)
Justin Black
As in the U.K., U.S. newspaper publishers will try to claim as many
rights as we let them get away with. HOWEVER, so long as you only license
one-time, non-exclusive use in one print edition, they do not have the right
to do ANYTHING else with the photo. I would be very surprised if copyright
law in the U.K. differed in this respect. In answer to your specific
questions...
> Do your national newspaper stock sales include free reuse in weekly
> or digest editions?
Not unless they are granted such re-use rights in writing with payment of
appropriate additional fees. The newspapers' own photo use agreements might
include language that grants them these rights at no additional cost, but
you are the seller, so you have the right to set your own terms.
> Do you know/check if they are being used like that?
Yes, I do check up on uses to the extent that I can, though . The most
frequent unauthorized uses by U.S. newspapers are online re-use, sales of
reprints (special additional printings of features that are favorable to
companies who purchase them for use in P.R.), and licensing of photos to
other publications. The largest newspaper publishers, such as the Tribune
Co. and the New York Times Co., seem to have an unspoken policy whereby they
often go ahead and make these uses and worry about dealing with the
photographer only if they get found out. Their assumption is that only a
small percentage of infringements will be caught, and it is cheaper to
defend or settle the few copyright infringement claims they are confronted
with. This is understandable considering that when they do happen to find
an unlicensed use, far too many photographers simply send the publisher a
normal invoice with no penalty for what is either willful infringement or
the result of gross negligence in image rights tracking/licensing).
> Have any papers asked for such rights?
Yes.
> have you billed for such use?
Yes, at our normal rates, minus a 15% re-use discount.
> I now know the Telegraph publishes a weekly edition & I know the
> Guardian does - which others do this?
Can't help you there.
Best regards,
Justin Black
General Manager
Mountain Light Photography
106 South Main St.
Bishop, CA 93514
tel: (760)-873-7700
fax: (760)-873-3233
e-mail: jbl...@mountainlight.com
George White
><wksphoto@c...> wrote:
>
>
>> deposit is returned after we have had our choice of 10 photos at no
>> charge from proof sheets of everything the photographer shot. We are
>> allowed to use these photos for any purpose we wish. When the 10 photos
>> are in our hands, we return the $500 deposit.
>
>> I did answer his reply with a big no thanks.
>
>Good. This is a BAD deal. The "any purpose we wish" means
>he can take the 10 best images and make them useless for
>anything but RF. If you could restrict his usage it would be a
>different story.
>
>Rick Boden
Rick --
Can't say that I agree with you here that the rodeo can "take the 10
best...and make them useless for anything but RF." The purpose of this
photo project, as I recall, was a stock generating opportunity.
First off, we all know that customers often take the image(s) that work
best for their needs, rather than what we consider to be our "best" images.
Sometimes their choices are surprising. There is no certainty regarding
what this rodeo organization might choose to take.
Secondly, we as photographers need to avoid over-evaluating (or over
romanticising) the value of any particular one or more of our photographs.
As income generating tools, few photos are superstars.
Thirdly, it is improbable that this rodeo organization has some larger
stock photo agenda. The most pragmatic probability is that the rodeo -- if
they really work any of the photos they might choose (much less all 10) --
will employ their choice(s) to promote their event to their limited
audience within their particular sport. Brochures, some limited editorial
content pehaps. In the much larger context of international stock
photography sales, the impact of this rodeo organization's uses on
Walter's stock income potential is, in my estimation, miniscule.
More problematic is the likelihood that Walter will succeed in making a
(any) photo(s) that will actually generate any stock sales. If he doesn't
make the effort, he certainly will have nothing. I'm with Rick
Becker-Leckrone, Joe Pobereskin, and Frans Rombout -- if the images are
successfully model released, and if Walter follows through on his agreement
to provide photos to the rodeo organization, and thereby receives the
return of his deposit, why not work the deal? Sounds like fun, and he's
not likely to have any competition from other photographers who reject the
deal.
George White
GEORGE WHITE LOCATION PHOTOGRAPHY
Seattle, WA 98115
ph/fax (206)525-1862
e-mail: <gw...@gwlocphoto.com>
http://www.gwlocphoto.com
wks photo
valuable.
George White
businesswoman who knows how to work an opportunity.
> In my book, it is an opening to be pursued. I have 3 levels of preset
>arrangements for clients to choose from. I promote them as "specials". that
>can be had.
>Valerie Henschel
>
>
George White
GEORGE WHITE LOCATION PHOTOGRAPHY
Seattle, WA 98115
ph/fax (206)525-1862
e-mail: <gw...@gwlocphoto.com>
http://www.gwlocphoto.com
Rick Boden
<gwjr@g...> wrote:
> Can't say that I agree with you here that the rodeo can "take the
10
> best...and make them useless for anything but RF." The
purpose of this
> photo project, as I recall, was a stock generating opportunity.
>
> First off, we all know that customers often take the image(s)
that work
> best for their needs, rather than what we consider to be our
"best" images.
> Sometimes their choices are surprising. There is no certainty
regarding
> what this rodeo organization might choose to take.
Hi George,
You are right that they may not take the best images but because
they can choose from all the images, they CAN take the best
ones. It's a crapshoot.
>
> Secondly, we as photographers need to avoid over-evaluating
(or over
> romanticising) the value of any particular one or more of our
photographs.
> As income generating tools, few photos are superstars.
You're right again. But they do happen and in my opinion it's not
worth risking the loss of a big seller. Although I wouldn't
consider my partner and I particularly big players, we have quite
a few images that have cumulative sales of over $50k including
one image that garnered that much in a single sale. So yes they
do happen, and maybe a bit more than you'd think...unfortunately
something a RF shooter would never know. (I'm not referring to
you...I don't know what you do in terms of stock.)
>
> Thirdly, it is improbable that this rodeo organization has some
larger
> stock photo agenda.
Right again, but just the fact that they can do anything with the
image means that you cannot guarantee any buyer that the
image will not be used by a competitor...and that really restricts
the rights protected saleability.
Rick
Paul Hardy Carter
If you reckon you can make enough on sales just pay the money, take the pictures and leave them to it. You've made a few thousand in sales and they've made 500 for a pass - everyone's happy.
- Paul
At 15:09 -0800, 17/12/02, Rivaldo DoEspiritosanto wrote:
>I am surprised to see that some folks see this as a deal worth considering.
>Think about it: how much would you charge to issue an all-rights, perpetual
>license for 10 images? Now add $500 to that amount. Are you really willing
>to pay this much to get access to a rodeo?
>
>Walter, I'm glad to hear that your common sense has prevailed.
>
>--Rivaldo Does
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Pobereskin
>You are right that they may not take the best images but because
>they can choose from all the images, they CAN take the best
>ones. It's a crapshoot.....
>
>You're right again. But they do happen and in my opinion it's not
>worth risking the loss of a big seller.
Perhaps I missed something in the original post, but why not offer a
limited set of images rather than the entire take. They want a
royalty-free license so offer them royalty-free material and save the
images you feel will earn you the big bucks, and are therefore best suited
for rights-managed licensing, for your collection.
Paul Hardy Carter wrote:
>Surely all they're doing is charging 500 bucks for a photo pass and
>offering you the opportunity to work it off if you want to.
>
>If you reckon you can make enough on sales just pay the money, take the
>pictures and leave them to it. You've made a few thousand in sales and
>they've made 500 for a pass - everyone's happy.
Paul's is the wisest comment in this thread. As I said earlier on: I've
paid more for access to location, talent and releases than $500. If you're
confident you can make a decent ROI then you should go for it. If you're
not confident in your ability to earn from your shoots then perhaps you
should've chosen another vocation. As Louis Pasteur said, "Chance favors
the prepared mind."
Joe Pobereskin
=====================================================================
Joseph Pobereskin Photography http://www.pobereskin.com
New York, New York USA
+1 (973) 313-0799
Member ASMP - http://www.asmp.org
jos...@pobereskin.com Member SAA - http://www.stockartists.com
=====================================================================
henschel
George,
I don't know about "astute"! Its always easy to offer advice after the
fact. I crashed and burned on a few tries. So I took the time to figure out
a comfortable way to approach business owners or government people who
control access to the stock shots I want to get. I personally like simple
choices, so I put together the three packages like a studio photographer
might have. I felt they made me look more professional, and I have had great
success with them. They basically are high end, middle of the road, and
budget. I often get someone hooked on the budget offer, do the shooting,
then have them upgrade and buy more image use than they anticipated. And I
have gotten many referrals to others in the same type of industry who also
need images. These people often turn into good clients, requesting other
images from my files for later usage. All I can say is - It works for me!
By the way, If I REALLY want something, I try to follow three rules:
1) Turn a disadvantage into an advantage
2) If you figure out what the other person wants, you can often get what you
want.
3) If you do not hear the word "NO", then you have a chance. If you do hear
the word "NO", ask why, you still may have a chance if you can overcome the
reason.
Much of this comes from training I had as a sales person. I HATED doing
sales work, but the training stuck, and it does actually help me when I am
doing stock. But I would much rather have others do the sell job for me!
It is just that I so enjoy doing photography, that I reluctantly put up with
all the business stuff that allows me to spend time doing what I really,
really like doing! I changed to photography to get away from computers,
office work, and selling. But I think there really is no getting away from
it at all! I envy those computer illiterates out there who refuse to learn,
and can get away with it.
But now, I will log off, create a salad, and go potluck with a bunch of
fellow photographers for the rest of the evening. It will be a much needed
break!
Valerie
Rick Boden
<joseph@p...> wrote:
> Paul Hardy Carter wrote:
>
> >Surely all they're doing is charging 500 bucks for a photo
pass and
> >offering you the opportunity to work it off if you want to.
> >
> >If you reckon you can make enough on sales just pay the
money, take the
> >pictures and leave them to it. You've made a few thousand in
sales and
> >they've made 500 for a pass - everyone's happy.
>
> Paul's is the wisest comment in this thread. As I said earlier
on: I've
> paid more for access to location, talent and releases than
$500. If you're
> confident you can make a decent ROI then you should go for it.
If you're
> not confident in your ability to earn from your shoots then
perhaps you
> should've chosen another vocation. As Louis Pasteur said,
"Chance favors
> the prepared mind."
>
You guys should reread the original post. The $500 is only a
refundable deposit. The "payment" is the choice of ten images
from the shoot and unlimited useage of those ten images.
If there is an opportunity to restrict usage...sure. But in my
interpretation of the post, it was a "take it or leave it" situation and
IMO he was wise to leave it.
Rick Boden
Rick Boden
> You guys should reread the original post. The $500 is only a
> refundable deposit. The "payment" is the choice of ten images
> from the shoot and unlimited useage of those ten images.
Maybe I should be the one rereading. It just occurred to me that
maybe you are suggesting paying the deposit and running off
with the pictures, leaving the deposit behind.
Duh! :-)
Rick
David Barr
>> You guys should reread the original post. The $500 is only a
>> refundable deposit. The "payment" is the choice of ten images
>> from the shoot and unlimited useage of those ten images.
>
>Maybe I should be the one rereading. It just occurred to me that
>maybe you are suggesting paying the deposit and running off
>with the pictures, leaving the deposit behind.
>
>Duh! :-)
>
>Rick
Not running off - the deal is the ticket to shoot is $500 and it is
refundable for ten good pictures. If they don't like you pictures
better than your $500 they still won't give you your money back.
Pay the $500 and before or after the shoot tell them that they willl
be able to see the images and if they really like them you can
negotiate your fee. The $500 is their fee for letting you take the
pictures. The first time you license a picture to a regular
client you can make $500 to cover your expense.
David Barr
wks photo
rodeo shoot both for and against doing it.
My gut feeling is not to do it. It just does not strike me as a good
deal.
When I go back and look up what I charge for an image used on the
internet for one year. Or two images used in an advertising brochure for
1 year or even a magazine ad. And I'm giving him card blanche on 10
images.
To give him 10 images that might show up any where at any time, 10
images that I may or may not consider the best of the shoot. It's 10
mages I would not want to put on the market for fear of them being used
in the same magazine or ad or somewhere his might show up.
And like Rick said it's a crapshoot, and I terrible at craps, but what I
have learned here is some better ways to approach the next one.
Again thanks to all
Walter
Walter Shockley
Mt Vernon, Oh 43050
wsho...@columbus.rr.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------