Just credit? Not for me

@James: But if those people would just charge for their photos instead of giving them away, we wouldn't have this problem. If $100 buys you a mediocre photo and $200 buys you a great one, you might not always get them to buy the $200 photo, but they'll buy it more than if it were $200 and $0.

James D wrote in post #7963911
Focusing on a reality check with a DOF that will make you Shudder

Times are changing very rapidly in the photography business and professional photographers must quickly learn to adapt and find their niche if they are to survive. Fifteen years ago if someone had told me that major camera manufactures would announce there were going to stop selling 33mm cameras in the US market place or that companies such as Kodak and other major film and camera companies would all but do away with 33mm film development services and products, I would have laughed at you - but they did. Then to see companies such as Ritz Camera and other similar companies practically fold and go out of business over night because the sudden switch to digital was simply too fast and too much for these companies to manage.

Those 33mm cameras never really caught on, anyway.

digirebelva wrote in post #7962799
[SIZE=2]I belive that covers the "Do you own the copyright" question and why you should register your photos..

When was the last time you checked on the cost to register a photo?
I was looking at registering a logo and it was $300+

Dave

gregpphoto wrote in post #7964152
@James: But if those people would just charge for their photos instead of giving them away, we wouldn't have this problem. If $100 buys you a mediocre photo and $200 buys you a great one, you might not always get them to buy the $200 photo, but they'll buy it more than if it were $200 and $0.

You can charge all day long but if nobody is paying it still won’t matter because people today and all about frugalness, convenience, and getting something for free.

ToddR wrote in post #7964200
Those 33mm cameras never really caught on, anyway.

are you joking?

(No judgement on T&L business practices... just answering the above question.)

It could be used in your marketing. Suppose you "sold" free pictures to T&L online, the WSJ online, and National Geographic online. Here is the difference between that and flickr:

Suppose you send out a direct mail brochure advertising your work. Which sounds more impressive in your sales letter:

"I've published thousands of photos on flickr."

or

My work has been published on Travel & Leisure.com, The Wall Street Journal.com, and National Geographic.com.

Casual readers of the letters aren't going to worry about whether or not you got paid for those pictures... all they're reading is "Travel and Leisure," "Wall Street Journal," and "National Geographic." Which does sound impressive.

James D wrote in post #7964312
are you joking?

Yes, but I still made an accurate remark, though tongue-in-cheek.

It's just with three erroneous references to the nonexistent* 33mm film format in the post I cited, I couldn't resist.

*Now, there may be some obscure 33mm format out there, but clearly 35mm was what was meant. I even Googled for it, and after discounting typos and references to 33mm focal length, I think I'm safe.

James Robert Gratiot wrote in post #7964354
(No judgement on T&L business practices... just answering the above question.)

It could be used in your marketing. Suppose you "sold" free pictures to T&L online, the WSJ online, and National Geographic online. Here is the difference between that and flickr:

Suppose you send out a direct mail brochure advertising your work. Which sounds more impressive in your sales letter:

"I've published thousands of photos on flickr."

or

My work has been published on Travel & Leisure.com, The Wall Street Journal.com, and National Geographic.com.

Casual readers of the letters aren't going to worry about whether or not you got paid for those pictures... all they're reading is "Travel and Leisure," "Wall Street Journal," and "National Geographic." Which does sound impressive.

I agree with this 100% and in time having the ability to claim you have been published opposed to only being Flickered will set you apart. Those publications will also continue to raise the bar for quality photos they accept, to make my point juts look at a magazine form the 1980s and the pictures in them compared to the pictures in more recent magazines.
Once you are established, accredited, and have a reputation only then you can start really charging and expect to get paid.

gregpphoto wrote in post #7964152
@James: But if those people would just charge for their photos instead of giving them away, we wouldn't have this problem. If $100 buys you a mediocre photo and $200 buys you a great one, you might not always get them to buy the $200 photo, but they'll buy it more than if it were $200 and $0.

Who's to say that a hobbyist should be charging? I know plenty of hobbyists who would he happy to have an image published.

I think many are forgetting that photography as a business has to compete with photography as a hobby

James Robert Gratiot wrote in post #7964354
(No judgement on T&L business practices... just answering the above question.)

It could be used in your marketing. Suppose you "sold" free pictures to T&L online, the WSJ online, and National Geographic online. Here is the difference between that and flickr:

Suppose you send out a direct mail brochure advertising your work. Which sounds more impressive in your sales letter:

"I've published thousands of photos on flickr."

or

My work has been published on Travel & Leisure.com, The Wall Street Journal.com, and National Geographic.com.

Casual readers of the letters aren't going to worry about whether or not you got paid for those pictures... all they're reading is "Travel and Leisure," "Wall Street Journal," and "National Geographic." Which does sound impressive.

Well, after lurking and reading hundreds of posts on "what to charge" and "is photo credit enough for a noob"... I decided that I wouldn't do "credit only" gigs...

But THAT is an excellent point on why I WILL do a few of those... particularly if the "client" is well known (nationally or is prominent in the community). Being selective is still important, but to use the client as a selling point is a good idea.

I never knew, nor even suspected, photography was so confusing... I din't think it was easy by any means... but wow... there's so much to think about, and the photo is only a fraction of it all...

Excellent point as well Snake.

Thanks! This forum has been(and continues to be) a fantastic resource!

wyofizz wrote in post #7964282
When was the last time you checked on the cost to register a photo?
I was looking at registering a logo and it was $300+

Dave

Dont know about a logo but you can register a cd full of photos for one price, $45 right now, going up to $65 after Aug 1

"Registration of a group of published photographs (Form GR/PPh/CON) (paper filing) $45 $65*"

James D wrote in post #7964301
You can charge all day long but if nobody is paying it still won’t matter because people today and all about frugalness, convenience, and getting something for free.

Who are they getting it from for free if everyone charges? They'd be forced to either pay or take the photos themselves.

James Robert Gratiot wrote in post #7964354
(No judgement on T&L business practices... just answering the above question.)

It could be used in your marketing. Suppose you "sold" free pictures to T&L online, the WSJ online, and National Geographic online. Here is the difference between that and flickr:

Suppose you send out a direct mail brochure advertising your work. Which sounds more impressive in your sales letter:

"I've published thousands of photos on flickr."

or

My work has been published on Travel & Leisure.com, The Wall Street Journal.com, and National Geographic.com.

Casual readers of the letters aren't going to worry about whether or not you got paid for those pictures... all they're reading is "Travel and Leisure," "Wall Street Journal," and "National Geographic." Which does sound impressive.

I've had my photos published on the websites of The NY Times, Men.style.com (run by GQ) and Country Music Television. I was paid for all but the Times piece, and that was only due to my stupidity (although it did lead to the GQ piece, which paid). If you have to do it for free, yes, be selective, hopefully something that leads to paying work.

A pretty decent sized group, I think it was NYPress.com, wanted to use some photos of mine a while back. They had advertisements on their website from some respectable companies. And not only did they not wanna pay, they wrote to me as if getting credit on their website was a big deal. I got into it with the guy, politely of course, and by the end of it, he actually agreed with me. I asked him if he wrote articles for free and he said "No, I don't write for much though." I told him that's fine, but you do get paid, however little it may be. And that's the key. Undercutting is bad enough; offering up for free what should never be free is worse.

gregpphoto wrote in post #7964152
@James: But if those people would just charge for their photos instead of giving them away, we wouldn't have this problem. If $100 buys you a mediocre photo and $200 buys you a great one, you might not always get them to buy the $200 photo, but they'll buy it more than if it were $200 and $0.

As my mother would say, if wishes were horses beggars would ride.

Photography is one of those tough businesses that is plagued with people willing to do it for fun. This makes life tough for people wanting to make a living at it.

Take solace - your airline pilot has the same problem. I think it raised a lot of eyebrows when people looked into the Colgan air crash and realized that the captain of that plane was a $70k a year employee and the 1st officer earned a rather shocking $24k. You can earn more working retail than as a licenced pilot working in commercial aviation in the US.

When your career interest involves doing something that people will pay to do, you sometimes have to suffer for your art.

JeffreyG wrote in post #7965135
When your career interest involves doing something that people will pay to do, you sometimes have to suffer for your art.

Take gardening. You may love to garden, LOVE IT, but are you going to tend your neighborhoods lawns and flowers, for free? Not likely. Gear heads? You'll work on your car till dawn, but will you fix someone else's, for free?

Just get paid. Then we all win haha.