When you aren't charging bands....

[bacchanal]

After reading the web gallery pricing thread, I got to thinking about what I'm doing and if I should be handling my situation differently. I've been struggling with the pricing thing a little lately, but for a different reason...basically I want to give most of my images away, but I want to do it with some discretion. Most of the artists that I shoot are truely not in it for the money. Recording is done in their basements or by friends, there is virtually no commercial promotion involved...just not much money being exchanged period. On the other hand, I think I've kind of reached the point at which someone who doesn't really know photography thinks my stuff looks somewhere close to what a pro could deliver. I don't want to create that 'photos for free' expectation out of respect for other area photographers, and occaisonally I'll shoot bands that actually can and will willingly pay for images.

So, lately I contact the artist and give them sort of a usage statement saying that the images are copywritten, web gallery/myspace type use is okay, printing of any kind or commercial/promotional use requires specific permission and generally a fee. I think in the near future I'll draft kind of a blanket usage statement and post it on my site, so I can simply refer people to it. I'm sure there is a better way to do this, legally speaking, but I'm not terribly concerned about that, I don't know, maybe I should be. My main goal is to be able to share my images without getting bombarded by all the 'want to make it big' artists looking for free lunch. That, and I've been screwed by the local paper a few times...

Fwiw, most bands who I've sent my little disclaimer to, have been understanding and respectful of my terms...some think I'm just advertising myself in an attempt to make money (which isn't reallly the case), but I can deal with that.

Any thoughts on this? I want to be fair and respectful to everyone in my local scene.

[Lefty Ray]

Try this . . .

Charge a band a $100 and tell them for the next year, whenever you cover one of their shows you will shoot it and supply them photos for website and myspace purposes. This license puts some money in your pocket, they get more than $100 value out of it over the course of a year, and you get free access where ever they perform. Obviously you will not be able to shoot all of their shows, espcially if they cover a small or large region, and espicially if you have more of these "yearly" deals with other bands.

This puts some money in your pocket, gives you more experience, you get more exposure, and hopefully leads to better paying jobs.

They key is to limit usuage to website and myspace sites. Feed them images no bigger than 600 pixels on the largest dimension. Anything else like posters, Cd covers, publicity sheets should be charged extra.

[danbjorklund]

Have you looked at using a creative commons license for your photos?

http://creativecommons.org/

it's what I usually use. it can do what I think your wanting to do.

[bacchanal]

Have you looked at using a creative commons license for your photos?

http://creativecommons.org/

it's what I usually use. it can do what I think your wanting to do.

Thanks, CC looks like it can get pretty close to what I had in mind, and it is nice and official looking.

[sspellman]

Drew-

In any situation were the client is not paying full rate for pictures, watermark each picture with your copyright, website, and permited use. It makes everything clear and provides you maximum return. ie "Copyright 2007, Scott Spellman - www.scottspellman.com - Web Use Only" Posting "terms" of an unsigned contract on your website has no legal concequence.

-Scott

[bacchanal]

Thanks Scott, I've never really liked watermarks, but I think you're right. Does a watermark hold any legal weight? I'm assuming since it is part of the image, and there is an implication that it has been viewed, that it may hold a little more weight than just posting a link to CC. So, now I just have to come up with a watermark that I can live with...
Also, I think I'll also start using lower res files on my zenfolio gallery. I currently upload 1600x1067, which is probably a bit larger than I should be posting.
Anyway, thanks guys for helping my get this sorted a bit better. Usage rights was about the last thing on my mind when I started posting images!:confused: