How much for licensing a photo you've been approached for in a book?

CameraMan wrote in post #18327686
So figure 3,000 people (minimum) buying this book at $30... That's $90,000 on a book that their probably profiting at least $60,000.

Your math seems to assume that everyone who had a photo in the book will buy a copy of the book. I don't think this is an accurate assumption to make.

Just because one's photo is in a book isn't reason enough to buy the book. I have photos in several books, and I have never bought any of them.

It is quite possible that the publishers lost money on the venture.

.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18327388
So if they have one figure per page, and they license each for 100 bucks. That's 12,500 bucks they have in images. They claim to be doing a 500 piece press run, sounds fishy.

So at that rate, every book they sell has 25 bucks worth of licensing fees.

IMO, you are already eating into your profits by thinking about this. No way they want you to recreate the image highly unlikely they will print it at more than a few inches in either direction, plenty of pixels in a phone.

Tell them 50 bucks for one press run and enjoy a nice dinner with the money, IF they decide to use your pic and then actually pay you.

Yes, I'm jaded.

Cheers

Also I. $50 sounds right for basically a stock image in a textbook. But these are not the days I knew. Expect $20 or nothing but a credit.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18327708
Your math seems to assume that everyone who had a photo in the book will buy a copy of the book. I don't think this is an accurate assumption to make.

Just because one's photo is in a book isn't reason enough to buy the book. I have photos in several books, and I have never bought any of them.

It is quite possible that the publishers lost money on the venture.

.

Well, I was actually taking the lower average. I didn't count all of the photos in the book but I'm positive there were more than 3,000 photos in the book so 3,000 would be about half of the people being published in the book. I wasn't insinuating that EVERYONE would buy the book if they had their images published in it.

I remember doing some research on the publisher and reading that there were around 5,000 photos in the previous book.

Also, the selling point is the fact that they are knocking $45 off their original price for those published in the book. When I bought the book on eBay the first thing I thought was 'I would be po'd if I paid $30 for this piece of junk'.

I don't know if I still have this book. I'll have to hunt for it when I get home. If I find it I'll take a picture or 2 of it so you can see what I am talking about.

In no way was there information as to how many pictures would be in the book and how many pages there were. Until I saw the research I did.

Also, I'm not saying the op is in the same situation. But not being paid for published photos sounds fishy like my situation.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18327708
Your math seems to assume that everyone who had a photo in the book will buy a copy of the book. I don't think this is an accurate assumption to make.

Just because one's photo is in a book isn't reason enough to buy the book. I have photos in several books, and I have never bought any of them.

It is quite possible that the publishers lost money on the venture.

.

I don't think they lost money. Dan Marchant's post, just above yours, outlines their "offer." Your photos in books you didn't buy–well, you were paid for those, right? Everyone who had a photo in this other kind of book would buy the book because the publisher offered nothing other than the "discount."

Surely in America there must be "standard rates" for publishing photographs?

OhLook wrote in post #18327752
I don't think they lost money. Dan Marchant's post, just above yours, outlines their "offer." Your photos in books you didn't buy–well, you were paid for those, right? Everyone who had a photo in this other kind of book would buy the book because the publisher offered nothing other than the "discount."

I guess I just don't understand the whole "photo in a book" thing or the "poem in a book" thing the way other people do.

If my photo is in a book, well.......I already have that photo, because it is mine. It is on my computer, and I can print it any way I want to. So why do I need to buy a book to see my photo? I don't - I can already see the photo any time I want to, without the book.

The same thing with these ridiculous poem books. The authors of the poems already have the poem. They have it written down and they have it on their computers. They can print their poems any time they want, any way they want. So why do they need to buy a book to see their own poem? They don't.

It is just completely nonsensical. And there must be others who think it is nonsensical, too. And these people would not buy the book, even if their photo or poem is in it.

A lot of people just want to be agreeable and help someone else out - that is why they would agree to have their work in a book, even if the book were of no interest to them. There are times when I have let people or organizations use my work for free and I have no interest in even seeing what they did with it - much less any interest in actually buying whatever it is that they put my photo into. I just want to be nice and agreeable - there need not be any 'reward' in it for me, tangible or otherwise.

.

john crossley wrote in post #18327753
Surely in America there must be "standard rates" for publishing photographs?

No, not at all. In fact, I don't think there is any such thing in any country. The chart you showed before is not a chart of "standard" rates - it merely shows averages.

We have such charts here, but they are extremely "off". They don't seem to take into account any of the microstock subscription licenses . . . which is ridiculous because these microstock licenses account for MOST of the work that is published.

Usually, the organizations that publish such "charts" are greatly biased, because they are involved in photo licensing themselves, and they want to give the impression that the "going rates" are much higher than they really are.

Crowdsourcing images for FREE and microstock subscription licensing are now the norm - independent licensing is now the exception. This fact defies the concept of "standard rates".

Because of the widespread use of crowdsourcing for free and microstock subscriptions, licensing rates across the board are far, far lower than they were just 4 or 5 years ago.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18327792
I guess I just don't understand the whole "photo in a book" thing or the "poem in a book" thing the way other people do.

If my photo is in a book, well.......I already have that photo, because it is mine. . . .

The same thing with these ridiculous poem books. The authors of the poems already have the poem.

These are scam vanity publishers. They send flattering letters to all entrants, saying what great merit your poem has and how talented you are. In reality, they have no standards, as established by terrible poems that skeptics have submitted as a test. "Getting published" is felt to be an honor by those who don't know how real publishing works. The people taken in include children and their parents, who pay for the book and sometimes also to attend a convention for the so-called contest winners.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18327792
I guess I just don't understand the whole "photo in a book" thing or the "poem in a book" thing the way other people do.

If my photo is in a book, well.......I already have that photo, because it is mine. It is on my computer, and I can print it any way I want to. So why do I need to buy a book to see my photo? I don't - I can already see the photo any time I want to, without the book.

The same thing with these ridiculous poem books. The authors of the poems already have the poem. They have it written down and they have it on their computers. They can print their poems any time they want, any way they want. So why do they need to buy a book to see their own poem? They don't.

It is just completely nonsensical. And there must be others who think it is nonsensical, too. And these people would not buy the book, even if their photo or poem is in it.

A lot of people just want to be agreeable and help someone else out - that is why they would agree to have their work in a book, even if the book were of no interest to them. There are times when I have let people or organizations use my work for free and I have no interest in even seeing what they did with it - much less any interest in actually buying whatever it is that they put my photo into. I just want to be nice and agreeable - there need not be any 'reward' in it for me, tangible or otherwise.

.

I am going to assume, based on the limited knowledge I have of your profession and target market, that you are published at least monthly, maybe weekly?

Think back to a time that you had never had someone publish your photography.

I bet that first published image made you feel good didn't it?

Did you buy a copy of the pub?

Maybe you still have it stashed in a drawer somewhere!

That is what I was thinking as well. Seems like a minimal production run of small quantity and that typically translates to smaller budgets.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18327997
I am going to assume, based on the limited knowledge I have of your profession and target market, that you are published at least monthly, maybe weekly?

Yes. I sell a lot through micro stock, so my images get used all over the place, and I never know where they end up unless I happen to see them "by accident" when browsing books at the library or magazines at the newsstand.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18327997
I bet that first published image made you feel good didn't it?

Yes, it did. It was for Montana Outdoors, back in 2007 or 2008, if I remember correctly. It was the first time I submitted photos to anyone, and they used two of mine, one for an inside spread and one for a back cover. They paid well, too.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18327997
Did you buy a copy of the pub?

I didn't have to - they send a copy with payment, to each person who has content in the issue. Several publications do this if they work directly with the photographer or writer.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18327997
Maybe you still have it stashed in a drawer somewhere!

I probably do! Although with me, it'd be a cardboard box, not a drawer.

.

I appreciate all the feedback. My feeling is that this is the type of publisher that scours the web looking for photos to use for free when people agree because they are "published" now. That good feeling I'll get from knowing my photo is in print will do just as much for me as it will for them. It wasn't even a photograph I was trying to do anything interesting with, it received absolutely no post processing. It was simply to document the building of a large item for another hobby (not related to photography) I had at the time, and published in my blog post about how to build such a thing for yourself.

I'm not against giving away my photos, and have offered to do such a thing in the past. Even offered to do entire shoots for free. If it is for the right thing, in my mind. Helping out a close friend or family member, helping an NPO do some good in the world, contributing to the community, etc. But if it's some textbook that is going to be a forced purchase on some college students so someone can make a buck, then they should cut a little piece of that buck off to the owners of the IP they wish to use.

This appears to be a book that is about industrial engineering, design, human-computer interaction, environmental health & safety, something along those lines. I guess I'm being a little vague because I don't want this thread popping up on their radar until after I have handled my negotiation with them. I'll post all the actual details after the deal is either closed or dead.

My assumption is that as soon as I ask for any money, I'll be lucky if I even get a reply saying no thanks. But it's BS in my mind to take other people's IP and use it for profit playing on their unexpected sense of accomplishment. I know they do not want it for its artistic expression, because it's not a great photograph. It's about the content. Even for what they intend to use it for (they told me the caption to be below the image), I have better photos. Or I could create a better photo in about 5-10 minutes. Honestly, I'd prefer to do that, not because I'd be making $100/hour if I spent 15 minutes on it and they gave me $25, but because my name is going to be next to the image and I would like to do something that better represents my skills these days vs an unedited smartphone image from 2008.

I get the feeling my best approach here is not the usual negotiation tactic of giving a higher number than you expect to get and negotiating down. Just giving them my fee for such a thing and that's that. For their purposes, I have many more of the objects that they are using the photograph for, and could put them in the background when recreating the image -- this would be to much better effect for their intended purpose. I would be willing to do that for the same amount of money as licensing this image, and I may consider putting that into my response.

So, I was thinking of phrasing it something like:

So, two issues with the above response come to mind immediately. The first thing I would like to address is the phrase "due to the small nature of your publication." I left it in there just to discuss it but think I will cut it out because it feel condescending, unless someone has a good reason that I should keep it in there.

The second and probably bigger issue with the above reply is that it is wordy. I have a problem with that, which is I'm sure is obvious by this point. Per the discussion in this thread, it was mentioned that it wouldn't be worth reshooting it, they aren't going to be interested. But it is more for me, to have a better image with my name next to it. I'm just phrasing it as a gift to them. However, if everyone thinks that it would lessen the chance that I get any money at all, I'll cut it. I don't think it's going to have any impact. I think they are going to see they haven't found someone who is willing to jump up and down for joy that their photo is going to be in a book, and the owner of the IP is asking to be paid for its usage. Upon that realization, I may or may not get a reply back saying we're not interested in paying.

heldGaze wrote in post #18328248
The first thing I would like to address is the phrase "due to the small nature of your publication." I left it in there just to discuss it but think I will cut it out because it feel condescending, unless someone has a good reason that I should keep it in there.

I have an excellent additional reason that you should get rid of it. It's unclear. What you mean, I guess, is their short press run, probably with some related thoughts about their budget behind that, but "the small nature of your publication" could mean a lot of things, some of them undesirable.

Wordy, yes. For example: "I feel obliged to mention that in the near decade since that photograph was taken, photographic equipment has greatly improved. Additionally, as it seems you are interested in the photograph for the easily identifiable nature of the [Item names] for a [project build], I would like to point out that I have a much larger collection of [Item names]" can be "Since that photograph was taken, photographic equipment has greatly improved. Additionally, I now have a much larger collection of [Item names]."

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18327708
Just because one's photo is in a book isn't reason enough to buy the book. I have photos in several books, and I have never bought any of them.

It's called vanity publishing for a reason. You aren't vain enough to fall for it.

john crossley wrote in post #18327753
Surely in America there must be "standard rates" for publishing photographs?

Yes, the standard rate is "whatever the parties agree to".