Selling images for 'Unlimited' use

[Dylan & Marianne]

Hi all, I was after some business advice for those in the know!
A certain company which I won't name (reputed and well known) requested a few images from our archive with the following requests
- A3 300 dpi size
- Unlimited use (billboards, media library for download, web, print media) for unlimited duration
- They didn't mention specifically handing over copyright but I wouldn't do that anyway

I'm not sure if anyone has been in this position before but Marianne and I were completely stumped as to how much we should charge them?
We looked up online stock images to purchase for those kinds of reasons and it seems you'd be looking at 1500 + per image - to me that seems a lot of money, but then again , those are pretty high demands....

What do you guys think?

[WhoDo]

$1,500 is small potatoes for what they're asking, Dylan. These could end up behind travel ads or anything and making the agency a squillion. Never underestimate your value as a photographer IMHO.

[Xenedis]

I tend to agree. The key term is 'unlimited', meaning that anything is possible.

A one-off fee of $1,500 per image really is small chips, given that the company could use your images in any form, forever.

I'd be wanting a lot more than that, given the potential buyer's terms.

[Dylan & Marianne]

wow really ?thanks for that lol - we won't feel bad about that figure then :P

[norwest]

Dylan, i sent you a message.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Thanks again john - really appreciated

[norwest]

Welcome.

[rwg717]

I'd have to agree with the above comments, what happens if one (or more) of your images turns out to be worth $10,000 and you no longer own the copyright? I'd be careful how I handled this and possibly a copyright lawyer might be a good investment
Richard

[mudman]

if their specs are for A3 at 300dpi, what other uses could they use them for except things like posters?

[Redgum]

DTOH, why did they spec A3 300DPI and unlimited use? The first is more common with prints which doesn't invite unlimited use.
Just an unusual request.

[Dylan & Marianne]

I'm not sure guys - that was what was stated in email (A3 size or larger I might at add)
I will let you know how this all pans out!

[norwest]

The files I've sold have been for both regional office shop front poster size pictures and publishing for company reports, PR and promotional material. To do all, they require full size files.

[Dylan & Marianne]

That's essentially what they asked for (stating minimum size A3 300 dpi)

[Dylan & Marianne]

We made an offer to them (less than the 1500 stated) - they said we'll let you know if we want any pictures - which is a way to say no I'm guessing lol
Not suprising given that a friend of mine under pressure gave them a photograph for 150 lol

[Xenedis]

Personally I wouldn't bother with that company at all.

It appears to be yet another example of an organisation wanting high-quality photographic images with which to do what it pleases, in return for peanuts.

It offends me.

[kalley]

Being a Bussiness owner but not in photography. The same rules apply. Everyone wants to have a Rolls Royce for the price of a Morris Minor. Don't compromise your ability for less than what you know you are worth. I prefer quality over quantity any day and my clients know that.

Would suggest you look at Copyright Laws. There are some very catchy phrases that can be used whereby you can retain artistic right to your photo's even though they might be sold or presented.

Royalties come to mind too.

[Redgum]

The price paid is in fact a reality. I've been selling photographs (and video) for close on thirty years and for all sorts of uses. Unless the specie photo has some special value (historic, one-off) it is only worth what the buyer pays.
Having said that, if you sell 10 photos every week at $150.00 you could be very comfortable. To sell 10 photos at $1500 every week would be great but I don't think there are too many professionals enjoying that sort of turnover.
Individual photos rarely have a super value. The money in photography revolves around contract work and in most cases this is why "agencies" are extremely wealthy. To value add is the name of the game if you want to make big dollars.
DTOH's experience spells that out clearly now that his friend is $150 better-off.

[Xenedis]

Everyone wants to have a Rolls Royce for the price of a Morris Minor.

Don't I know it!

The last time I dealt with a company wanting high-quality images, the rep told me I was too expensive and had too many restrictions.

This is what the rep said in response to my offer:

That is ridiculous. Earlier this year I had a photo shoot with an
reputable architectural photographer and received 15 photos for the
price of one of your photos. Not to mention half of the restrictions.

These were the 'restrictions' I outlined in my offer:

1. copyright remains with me;
2. the images cannot be modified beyond resizing, cropping and text/graphical overlays (eg, Web site);
3. I am to be credited.

Gee, what a hard case I was, eh?

And this was my response:

I'm sorry you feel that way, but like quality architecture, quality imagery is not cheap, especially when the licence allows you to use it forever in your company's materials.

If you can find a photographer who is willing to give you everything for next to nothing, then my advice is to do that.

Earlier in the email discussion, the rep told me that "it would be a great opportunity to establish your name in architectural photography".

To me that means "you're nobody in the world of architectural photography, but your stuff is excellent and we want it, except that we aren't prepared to pay you properly, but you could get your name out there".

To that I say "get... err, lost!"

So, if I'm too expensive and restrictive, and if this company had a shoot with a reputable architectural photographer and got images for a squillionth of the price I asked, why bother contacting me?

I should have told the rep that I'd like to have our kitchen and bathroom remodelled, and that maybe the company could do it for $2,000...

Don't compromise your ability for less than what you know you are worth. I prefer quality over quantity any day and my clients know that.

Amen.

- - - Updated - - -

DTOH's experience spells that out clearly now that his friend is $150 better-off.

To me, Dylan's friend devalued his work and himself for the measly sum of $150.

I consider my work, and my time, to be worth far more than that, and there's no way in hell I'd be parting with my rights for pocket change.

But at the end of the day's it's an individual decision, and I personally choose not to sell out and devalue myself and my work for a few quick bucks.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Redgum my friend knows it - there are a few of us who the company has contacted and he was under alot of stress at the time . Both of us do not rely on photography for a living so we can make mistakes and learn for next time ps. I didn't just come up with the 1500 figure - Marianne looked up the price to purchase stock images for similar purposes and found that that was a minimum price - I guess this company just wanted to cut out the middle man?

[Redgum]

No one has made a mistake but simply succumbed to the rule of supply and demand. This rule has existed since the days of bartering. Products and services are only worth what the buyer pays. The pride of ownership is the only factor that separates amateurs from professionals. In many cases there are millions of suppliers (photographers) out there but only a few buyers.
This pride is the single largest factor why amateur photographers find it difficult to turn professional and subsequently make money.