How much to charge for stock photos

[Valzan]

Hi Folks,

Over the years I have sold a few prints at art shows and have been hired as a still photographer for a variety of events on an hourly rate. Recently I have been approached about purchasing the use of photos that I shot last year at a trade show. How is this typically done, in other words are the photos released for one time use, unlimited use or .... and most importantly, how much should I charge?

Thanks,

Valzan

[Ron Kruger]

I have considerable experience with this, Val.
First of all, everyone wants pictures for nothing, or next to nothing, and that's getting worse all the time, as each equipment upgrade makes professional photographers out of most everyone that can press a shutter release button in "auto" mode, and most of them would give their stuff away, just to be published.
As one of the best photographer I've ever known put it to me recently. "Sell them for whatever you can get. The business is shot."
Basically, it's all negotiable. You can charge, and expect, much more from a big business than from a small or private interest.
The business end of things is more complicated than the photography end. What you charge should be based upon the client's intended uses and the "rights" they buy. (For more details about it than I have space here to convey, get a copy of Photographer's Market or a book on copywrite laws.)
Most common, and the one I like best, is "one time rights." This means they get to use it in one manner, one time; the rights to the image remain with you and you are free to sell it as many times as you want, wherever you want. If, for example, they buy it for a brocure or something, then later decide it would be good on the internet, in a magazine they've decided to start or whatever, they have to pay you again.
Next most common is "first rights," which is the same as one time right, except you are ensuring them that this is the first time it has been published anywhere.
Next is "first North American serial right," which means they are not only first to publish it, but can publish it in subsequent things as they see fit in the future, but you still retain the right to sell it elsewhere as well. (That's sort of like joint ownership.)
Worst of all is "all rights," which I have avoided doing for years. This means that from that time on, they own it, and you have no rights to any other use of that image, or one very similar to it--ever. Technically, you would have to pay them to put that image in your own scrap book, and you're even supposed to delete the image from your files.
If you are thinking of a future in this, or any future possibilities for any of your images, don't sell all rights, or at least demand a real bundle for it.
There's a lot of other "rights" and funny little deals going on (I've been approached by two strange ones lately), but, as I said, it's all negotiable and there are plenty of copywrite laws to protect you.
The thing is, if you know the common deals and something about copywrite laws, and can speak the language, a potential client is much less likely to try to take advantage of you.

[brmill26]

Photo licensing is an extremely complex combination of Copyright law and Contract law. You need to know both fairly well to really write a proper license. First you need to know that via Copyright, you are the owner to wide set of rights in every image you take. Those rights include: the rights to reproduce, make derivative works, distribute, digitally distribute, and/or publicly display your photos. Those are your chief Copyrights, which are commonly referred to as the "bundle" of rights. Think of it similar to a bundle of sticks - you can pull out one or two and keep the rest, or you can sell the whole bundle. You can either sell all rights (which means you no longer have any right to the image and must delete any files you have, as Ron said), or you can license certain rights. Licensing is by far the most common and is what I would recommend you do.

From that point you've got a blank canvas. Choose as many or as few of the rights (listed above) that you want to license. You should be well informed as to what each of them really mean, because for example, it would be quite silly to grant the right to publicly display without the right to reproduce if you were selling files (it'd be impossible). So read up on those.

Once you figure out what rights you want to license, then you're 100% in the realm of contract law. You can write the contract to say just about anything you want. If you want your contract to say "______ [the buyer] shall not display my photo within 100ft of a drinking fountain" you can say that! Of course, most people will use contract provision to place limitation on how much use the buyer gets. For example, if you license the right of reproduction, you may limit it to 100 copies. You may also say there is no right to assign or resell the rights to another party.

[Valzan]

Hey Ron and BR,

I totally get what your saying and without question I want to retain ownership and control of my work. The potential buyer provides talent for these corporate shows and would like to use my photos as part of his PR package promoting his artists. Think in terms of performances similar to Blue Man Group, large dance troupes, and musical ensembles. I think the shots would be used for printed and Internet based advertising. Knowing this information would you venture a guess as to the value I should assign to the work. You can see some of the images at www.WayneValzania.com in the "Corporate" gallery. The Blue Guy Group and the Roku Drummers are the ones he is after. Thanks!! Valzan

[brmill26]

I've never done anything that big so I really can't give you an exact number, but it should certainly be based on how many copies will be made in terms of printed advertising, how many people will see it if it's displayed anywhere, and a similar consideration for traffic on the website. My price would definitely have 4 figures though, no question.

[Ron Kruger]

It's good to have a lawyer around here. What I told you are the standard deals, usually conducted between writer/photographers and magazines. Brad offers the legal expansions upon that, which, as I said, are all really negotiable.
For PR use with an established entity such as you name, I would think demands at least four figures. A PR firm or advertising agency would get much more, but your are not of the professional caliber and shouldn't expect the same, and, after all, all you're selling are pictures, not additional services.
I've heard of this happening quite a bit lately. The guy you're dealing with knows what a PR firm would cost, and he's trying to get it done cheaply by buying the images from you and doing all the other things himself. It might sound like he's taking advantage of you, and there's always that possibility, but I usually see this kind of thing as offering a unique opportunity to an unknown.
If it were me, I'd start with four figures and settle for much less, if I had to, just for the opportunity and its possible credentials for the future.