$1000/year for 1 photo!!?

[cdanddvdpublisher]

I'm no lawyer, but I'd be willing to bet that there is a difference between "similar" and "copy".

there is a difference, however, it's a small one - especially if you set out to recreate another photographer's work

 

[mmcduffie1]

If you're really doing a $3k job for $500, then I would hope that you're unsure of your abilities b/c they really are that marginal. Otherwise, you're losing money, undercutting other people, and in general devaluing the profession just b/c you have low self-esteem.

Experience won't help you price yourself in the future. Competence and confidence will.

I agree. It's hard enough to close a sale in this business. If i was selling usage for 1k and someone (not a pro like i would be if i were doing that) undercut me - i'd be miffed. I feel like undercutting when you have the inside track is unethical. IMO

 

[Alleh Lindquist]

I am curious why the photographer had taken the shots of your location before hand? Did they do it on their own or did your company ask? If your shot looks the exact same then it was a little unethical and could maybe be considered theft of intellectual property but I don't know a whole lot about clients stealing one photographer’s ideas then hiring another to use them and do it for less.

As for $1000 for what you stated the usage as I think it was reasonable but I would have included more than one year considering the size of your business. $400k to open the place and $1000 is too much for a photo for the front of your business plan? Plus you have got to be high to think that a high quality photo will have nothing to do with getting investors. The image on the front of your business plan is going to be the very first impression they will have of your restaurant. A bad photo will lose most people right from the start.

I got bitched out by someone the other day cause I offered to do a job for a guy he almost had signed into a 3k contract for 500 dollars and a reference.

Im so unsure about my own abilities i feel awkward charging people, so i mostly just say "Ill do it to fill my portfolio."

=\ experience is more important to me then money, because i can use experience to help price myself in the future.

The fact that someone was going to pay $3k proves they were interested in at least decent photography so by hiring you they take a high chance of having to go back and pay the other guy the $3k on top of the $500 you got. You have to be a retard though to think the best time to practice is when you are getting paid (seems pretty common though these days). If you want experience go out and shoot, shoot everyday and read, read and read some more and then practice what you read over and over again.

I still wonder what makes people think photography does not take the same amount of practice, skill and dedication as any other professional title. "Hey everyone I just bought a Porsche so now I am a lawyer, what should my attorney fees be." Your Costco bought D80 kit, that super great best bang for the buck 50 1.8 and your 5 months of shooting “TONS” of photos of your family does not even come close to making you a “photographer”

 

[gatorcruz]

Well, this is why companies should hire photographers for their services/time and company keeps all rights to the images. There are plenty of talented photographers for these services. I hope that you, as an an employee, approached them at the lower end rate and were paid accordingly for your services.

Also, if your company owns the building (or someone else) and the building is rather new then I am not sure how the photgrapher can claim any lease rights to the image when, technically, he/she would need to pay the owner of such building for the rights to sell the image (because the building is the reason for the image's value). Your company should have approached her with an invoice for $750 for the year ... That should have made it more reasonable .

 

[Vmann]

Yea, there is, and it gets argued in court at $350 an hour

But yea, it all depends on how similar the shots are. It doesn't have to be exact, or a perfect copy, to end up in court. If its close enough the photographer feels he was infringed, thats all it takes to get him motivated enough to call a lawyer and file suit. Whether its close enough to the original to win is a whole different matter.

Once you are in court, its costly whether they win or loose. So the key is to avoid having something close enough that the original photographer will 'feel' infringed, rightly or wrongly, and decide to take action.

So yes, you can definitely be sued for a 'similar' image, and people have.

I'll add to this... I work for for a clothing company that creates licensed apparal in the outdoor hunting market and we have been sued on multiply accounts for similiar images. I said similiar like a photo used in a magazine jobing out of the water and a vector illustration used on a embroidered cap taken down to 6 colors. Not much similiarities other than they are fish jumping out of the water like every bass picture most people have seen. Most these suits don't even make it to court. They end up being worked out like this.

Royality for product already in hand, Sue for 150k but settle for 25k and all law expenses.

Know lets apply to your company just starting out. Sue for 150 but there lawyer offers up the option to keep it out of court at a cost of 25 what sounds resounable.

My own opionen undercutting is a part of life but extreme lowballing and use of there image for the basis of yours is wrong. You know what would be even cooler just have you do your job for a whole week then take all you've done and hand it to someone else have them summarize/copy it and turn it in for half of what you where going to make. Who cares right its just business.

Not trying to be a complete jerk but I think what you did was wrong.

 

[jstuedle]

Lesson to be learned from all this;
as a photographer either consider the financial situation of your customer and what they can afford and charge accordingly or be prepared to lose out. $1000 a year for the use of a photo for the cover of a business plan was not in our ballpark. Consequently after seeing my photos my bosses want me to photograph all our products and for this I will be charging my regular rate and they are fine with it. So for taking an hour out of my day to take a shot of one of our locations I generated paid work for myself.

1) $1000 is not out of hand considering the viewership the image will get. It's all about the numbers. Besides it deductible for the company. It's also taxable for you.

2) IMHO, it is unethical for an employee who is an insider to "bid" on a job against outsiders who don't have your inside track. As a retired aerospace engineer for a major jet engine manufacturer, I would not be allowed as a matter of company policy to compete on this type of work. Even as a retiree, I am locked out of any consideration. Simple professional ethics should bar any employee, current, retired, or recent past from consideration.

3) As an employee of this company, you could be expected to perform this work as a matter of course related to your current employment. Your compensation could well be your hourly rate if you are a non-exempt employee. And as part of your normal salary if you are an exempt salaried employee. So in a nutshell if you make $20.00 an hour, and it takes you 15 min. to walk out and push the shutter button, you might make $5.00, or nothing if salaried. I signed a release as a condition of employment agreeing that any patents or other value I brought to the table for my employer was compensated at my normal rate and was the sole property of said employer.

To wrap it up, I would respectfully decline as you might put yourself in a position where you either feel taken advantage of, or your worth as an employee called in question. If you plan on doing the work, get it writing and don't shoot it on company time.

 

[dmassphoto]

So, let me get this straight....

This company was going to hire a photographer to take this photo, and their employee caught wind of the bid, knew the prices that were being charged, then willfully and deliberately low-balled the main competition by who-knows how much, THEN went out and took the same photo?

This is unethical, unprofessional, and any other "un" I can think of right now.

I know I only have a few posts in here, but the level of amateur thought when it comes to the business of photography is really making me believe this is not the place for me. Those who wish to make any kind of career out of photography should really listen to professionals who know their stuff, because those guys are the ones putting their way of life on the line, just so others who have no idea how to run a business can come in and take all their hard work away from them. I really believe that everyone who knows how to take "pictures" isn't qualified to sell images or services. Have some respect for the profession and those who work so hard to maintain their way of life.

 

[Stanger]

I see no problem with what D-50 did. He did the same amount of work as the original photographer. He can work for free if he wants. It isn't his duty to ensure the photographer gets work. They asked for more than the company wanted to pay, so an employee helped them out. If you can't make enough to support yourself as a professional photographer, that is your problem, not mine. You get paid what the market dictates, period. In this case, the market says you don't get the job at all. That's the real world folks, grow up and stop crying.

 

[StrBender]

So, let me get this straight....

This company was going to hire a photographer to take this photo, and their employee caught wind of the bid, knew the prices that were being charged, then willfully and deliberately low-balled the main competition by who-knows how much, THEN went out and took the same photo?

This is unethical, unprofessional, and any other "un" I can think of right now.

I know I only have a few posts in here, but the level of amateur thought when it comes to the business of photography is really making me believe this is not the place for me. Those who wish to make any kind of career out of photography should really listen to professionals who know their stuff, because those guys are the ones putting their way of life on the line, just so others who have no idea how to run a business can come in and take all their hard work away from them. I really believe that everyone who knows how to take "pictures" isn't qualified to sell images or services. Have some respect for the profession and those who work so hard to maintain their way of life.

Amen Brother,

I don't think they have any idea what it means to be or act like a professional photographer. In the end they will destroy the profession by continuing to dumb down the profession.

When I was a builder I had to compete against yuppie builders who used/abused illegal help to get the job, but had no idea how to do any of the work. The government turned their head and looked the other way, so I left the business to pursue my photography business. Now it seems like everyone with a camera calls themselves a professional and the prices have tanked. Being a professional photographer is 95% being a businessman and 5% being a photographer.

Go to Getty Images and see what the "Real World" licensing fee would be for this project. Then compair that against what a store clerk thinks is acceptable and you will see were the real pro's are comming from.

 

[JodieO]

So my company is putting together a business plan for future expansion, a photograhper took some shots of one of our locations and said if we want to use the photo on the cover it will be $1000 a year for the use of the photo.... Is this usual? sounds unreal to me, anyway my bosses did not realize the extent I am into photography and I am going to take it for them tonight. I just wanted to hear others opinions on this pricing

That's low. Consider that to be a deal.

It's a shame that so many people are low in commercial photography anymore - it is dragging the industry down.

 

[farmerj]

Having looked at going back to school for photojournalism, photography and doing more than a hobby, This is mainly why I WON'T do it.

I ust say, the professional courtesy and legal view here bit the dust.

What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

I hope the other photographer DOESN'T see it they way either. If it were me, I'd be having someone in court before the ink could dry. Litiganous society? Yop, but we have pretty much made it that way on ourselves.

I do so hope you can sleep well at night. It's on par with plagiarism.

 

[Rhubarb]

When will this thread die?