to those who copy copyright images..

i agree with whoever said to sell photos for a fiver. i bet they would sell LOADS at that price. you could do this without those stupid cardboard mounts by just putting the pics in a plastic sleeve.
 
Part of the reason I was so peeved about being slapped on the wrist by the photographer in the previous thread was:
a) I had paid for 3 BIG prints = £££
b) I buy at least one photo from every big show I go to (if they're decent) - last year I spent over £300 on photos!

It's not as if I have never added to a photographer's income :( Guess I'm not going to win this one so I give up, it seems I am firmly in the "Big Time Criminal" category from the photographer's point of view!
Soooooo......can I have my £300 back, and you can have my (oops sorry, YOUR) photos back?
I'll stick to my OH's photos - he's pretty good actually, and manages to groom for me as well!
 
Rosiefan said:
A few years ago (maybe 4 or 5) we were amazed to discover Rosie and her spotty horse were the April 'pin-up' picture in the Pony Club calendar. We knew nothing about it until a friend mentioned it.
Do think the publisher might have sent a few free copies but there you go!
Click to expand...

I had this happen - someone told me I was in a magazine. A picture of me and B had been used from their "stock" of photos that they get from photographers. They were kind enough to send me a copy when I emailed them though
 
In response to some of the points above, I must say that several of our local photographers have seen the light and are now offering very reasonably priced low res jpgs for use on Facebook, forums etc. I've probably bought about half a dozen jpgs in the last few months, and these are images I wouldn't have otherwise bought as not quite good enough to justify forking out for a paper image. (That's not down to lack of skill on the photographers' part, just due to other factors).

And, yes, to the poster above, all the photos in my siggy are my own work!)
 
I wish photographers would sell small/low resolution images. Very often the smallest print you can buy is 8" x 10" - I don't want something that big, I just want a record to go in the album to show we were there. If its good enough to go in a frame and put on show, I'm quite happy to pay a fair amount for it but how many that good do you get each season?

Last year with two jockeys and 5/6 horses, I think there were only 2 photographs which had the wow factor - but I still spent about £500 on others that will just get filed.
 
As a full time professional equestrian photographer I have these conversations every single week with riders, owners etc. Legally I take the photograph, I own the copyright. By the very nature of my business, we effectively lose that copyright by offering prints, jpegs of any resolution or by putting any images on our website.

My thoughts on the matter are very well documented on this particular forum. The real issue for me is not copyright it is about receiving a "fair " reward for the time, trouble and expense I have incurred to obtain the image that my potential customer would now wants to buy. The reality is that the vast % of images we take have very resale value and only have value for the rider, OH, family or owners. I had occasion to place an advert on a well known website recently for a horse for sale. In the showjumpers section was an advert for a horse with an image taken by me and copied off my website. Cost of advert £36, asking price of horse £175000, cost of picture £0. So my picture is good enough to advertise this horse but the rider/owner feels it is not necessary to purchase the image. Just to be clear, the cheapest purchase option available to this person via my web site was a low resolution, very discreetly watermarked jpeg via email at £2. Or a non-watermarked at £4. Or a 6x4 at £7. So to be honest it doesn't matter how cheap the options are some people simply consider it acceptable to shoplift the image as if it is their right because they are either in it, want it or need it.

I regularly see thousands of images of mine on Facebook, some paid for, the vast majority not paid for. I regularly see images I have taken used for advertising, the majority paid for thankfully but a decent amount not paid for. I have experimented with different pricing structures and offers. What I have learnt is that the people prepared to buy will continue to do so if they are happy with the image, quality, price etc. Those that are not prepared to pay for the image will continue their shoplifting until they are prevented from doing so. The means of prevention in my experience does not justify the inordinate amount of time taken up by either approaching the person via FB, email, text etc, having to explain yourself etc.

If you have a few weeks free, try a little exercise in futility. Email Facebook to report an intellectual property infringement. I attempted to get some watermarked images removed from a company Facebook site that were using my images to advertise their horses. The shoplifter refused to acknowledge my emails, remove the images etc. For all I know they are still there.

High profile photographers are giving up their equestrian photography business because of this- it is happening and will continue to happen. It would be very interesting to see the outcome of a legal case.

Making my printed images cheaper does increase my sales. It means I sell more prints. My turnover remains surprisingly constant, my print costs double and my profitably decreases. So actually I make less money by reducing my prices. Odd but true.
 
Spidge I know how hard it is to get an image removed from facebook as I have gone through the process with some of my photos. I don't sell mine but I still like credit or to be asked. This person was passing off lots of my photos as her own saying she had taken them. Took ages to get them removed but facebook did eventually believe me!

I think your structure for pricing seems very fair and Its sad to know your revenue has actually decreased. the key is prevention of taking the copyrighted images but as we tested few months back on here there is not yet anywhere near a simple foolproof method to do so, infact there isn't even a convuluted round the house difficult method!!
 
Santa_Claus said:
I think your structure for pricing seems very fair and Its sad to know your revenue has actually decreased.
Click to expand...

I find it easiest to have a very flexible pricing model and will vary it according to event, venue, level of competition, my costs incurred in attending that particular event ( transport for example if further afield than normal or higher than usual attendance fees for the privilege of being the official photographer)

My comment with regard to sales turnover, profitably etc was with regard to cutting prices. If we sell 6x9's for £5 at an event we sell twice as many compared to how many we would sell if the prints were £10. I tried it on several occasions just to verify that it was not a freak result.

Oddly enough we sell pre-pay photo vouchers in denominations of £50 and £100. The £50 voucher has no time limit, entitles the purchaser to buy 10 6x9's at "any" event that we attend ( whether Hickstead or local pony club) and is well marketed on our web site, Facebook and onsite at events.The prints do not have to be bought at the same time just to make that clear. I thought we would sell loads. I was wrong. We have sold 1. Yes just 1 in nearly 3 months. If my customers prefer to pay me £10 for a print they could have for £5 I really, really don't mind.
 
Does anyone know any photographers who DO sell the photo in it's entirety (including it's copyright)? I would love to know which photographers to look out for or recommend.
 
PucciNPoni said:
I wonder if there's a statute of limitations on these images? What if.....

...you've bought prints from a photographer years ago (say, 5) and you'd then like to have an electronic image of it. But you can't remember who you bought it from - who the photographer was...or maybe even WHERE exactly it was taken. You just like the image and want to scan it.

Or what if it's more like 10 years ago....

20?


Surely there has to be a limit....
Click to expand...


There is a limit, but I'm not sure you would want to wait around for it to expire, it is 70 years after the death of the creator! The same as all other artistic works.

There are some special conditions though I believe for "orphan works" which is when the creator cannot be identified or traced. This is why many photographers print their name or their business name discreately on the picture or the reverse of the picture.
 
HuggyBear said:
Does anyone know any photographers who DO sell the photo in it's entirety (including it's copyright)? I would love to know which photographers to look out for or recommend.
Click to expand...

If you ask the photographer when you see a photograph you like you may be pleasently surprised. They probably won't give you full unrestricted copyright but will probably be happy to give you permission to use it for all non-comercial purposes. If you want it for commercial purposes then you will probably have to pay considerably more.

The issue it, the photographer takes a photo of a kid at a pony club show. It probably has very little commercial value, he may be able to sell it via an agency for use in a magazine or catalogue or something but it will be of limited use. However in future that kid becomes Jordan and suddenly selling that photo to all the newspapers and celeb magazines will net him thousands, if he has retained copyright for commercial purposes he can do this, if he didn't he can't. Potentially being able to sell a picture like that could net him several months pay. The photographer never knows whether a photograph may in future be worth lots, you see all kinds of photos that were probably considered insignificant when taken that have later made the photographer some cash.
 
KristmasKatt said:
If you ask the photographer when you see a photograph you like you may be pleasently surprised. They probably won't give you full unrestricted copyright but will probably be happy to give you permission to use it for all non-comercial purposes. If you want it for commercial purposes then you will probably have to pay considerably more.

The issue it, the photographer takes a photo of a kid at a pony club show. It probably has very little commercial value, he may be able to sell it via an agency for use in a magazine or catalogue or something but it will be of limited use. However in future that kid becomes Jordan and suddenly selling that photo to all the newspapers and celeb magazines will net him thousands, if he has retained copyright for commercial purposes he can do this, if he didn't he can't. Potentially being able to sell a picture like that could net him several months pay. The photographer never knows whether a photograph may in future be worth lots, you see all kinds of photos that were probably considered insignificant when taken that have later made the photographer some cash.
Click to expand...

That's the crux, I want full unrestricted copyright. I don't want them to make potential money off me in the future and I want to be able to put a photo of me wherever I want to when I have paid money for it. Commercial or private use.

I wouldn't bat an eyelid at the prices charged if you were actually getting full value for money (I understand your set up costs) but when you realise all you are effectively shelling out for is a piece of paper with some colour on it, the prices charged are completely ridiculous. With full copyright, the original image file, free to use when ever, how ever and as many times as you want make the charge of £10 + a photo worth while. Until then, I see it as a rip off. Cover your costs by all mean but make it actually value for money for the purchaser.
 
KristmasKatt said:
There is a limit, but I'm not sure you would want to wait around for it to expire, it is 70 years after the death of the creator! The same as all other artistic works.

There are some special conditions though I believe for "orphan works" which is when the creator cannot be identified or traced. This is why many photographers print their name or their business name discreately on the picture or the reverse of the picture.
Click to expand...

Thanks for answering this - and no, don't think I'd want to wait for that!
 
HuggyBear said:
That's the crux, I want full unrestricted copyright. I don't want them to make potential money off me in the future and I want to be able to put a photo of me wherever I want to when I have paid money for it. Commercial or private use.

I wouldn't bat an eyelid at the prices charged if you were actually getting full value for money (I understand your set up costs) but when you realise all you are effectively shelling out for is a piece of paper with some colour on it, the prices charged are completely ridiculous. With full copyright, the original image file, free to use when ever, how ever and as many times as you want make the charge of £10 + a photo worth while. Until then, I see it as a rip off. Cover your costs by all mean but make it actually value for money for the purchaser.
Click to expand...


But maybe you want to use it for a purpose the photographer wouldn't approve of, that would be another reason for him restricting copyright. Say he was at a drag hunt meet, and he sells copyright to you and subsequently you sell the image to be used in pro-hunt literature but he is fervently anti-blood sports and would hate to support anything associated with hunting.

Or maybe you sell the image but manipulate it in some way so that it no longer looks the same.

Can you see why photographers like to retain the copyright? It isn't just the financial issues, it is about professional integrety and reputation etc. The same as with music, many artists will restrict where their work can be used.

If you genuinely want the photographer to give up all rights to an image he has created then you are likely to have to pay a significant amount. If you just want to use it for personal purposes then the photographer will most likely be happy to agree something, likewise he will likely agree lowscale commercial use like classified ads.

Generally photographers are reasonable, I've been through getting permission for commercial use with DH. He is an artist, when he was a teenager he did some drawings based upon photographs he found in books and magazines, at the time it was just for his own pleasure. Since then he has become a professional, he sells original drawings and reproductions of his drawings, he had interest from people wanting to buy some of these old images. So retrospectively we had to approach the photographers, one in particular was owned by a newspaper group but still they were happy for the picture to be used for free.

At the end of the day if you want the photographer to not be able to potentially make money out of images of you then the only way to do it is to ask them not to photograph you. As they always have the right to refuse to sell copyright.
 
applecart14 said:
If photographers at events weren't such an avaricious bunch of people then competitors wouldn't be tempted to copyright photos. At the end of the day lots of people i know go on MS photo editor, enlarge the photo to 400 pixels and then spend an hour or so cutting the water mark out. Either that or pay £15 for a piece of paper, which in effect is what it is. With these all singing, all dancing fancy cameras it doesn't seem to be the photographers talent that your paying for these days, it appears to be the expensive cameras equipment. That said I paid a rather ridiculous £10 for a photo last weekend but that is the exception and not the rule. I don't like to be ripped off for anything and I don't know how they can justify charging £10-£15 for a phot which costs pence to produce.:mad: Note to event photographers - Charge a fiver a photo and see how many more you will sell.:)
Click to expand...

I haven't read all the posts in this thread but posts like this one above REALLY get to me. So I'll take 5 minutes to reply to you and hopefully you may see why we charge £10 for a print.

First off in order to shoot at a show the photographer normally donates or pays a fee to the organisation that has arranged the show, be it a riding club, pony club, committee etc.

Then the photographer must have appropriate equipment to cover the show- in my camera bag I have a £800 slr camera (by no means top of the range), £900 lens, 6 memory cards at £15-£20 each, 6 batteries at £10-£15 each, spare camera body at £400. Then if they are printing on site they have to purchase printers, laptops, generator, software, paper, ink. Then there's insurance, general wear and tear, you get the picture (no pun intended).

A photographer cannot solely cover a show, so needs a team of say 2 other photographers to work, depending on how they choose to pay (hourly or a cut of profits). Say hourly, £6 an hour and we are normally on site from 8am till 5/6pm= minumum £120 in wages. Plus someone to do onsite printing if needs be.

Generally a photographer is one of the first people to arrive at the show, and the last person to leave once everything is cleared up. 12 hour+ days not including the time it takes to upload files to the internet in the days after the show...

Then the photographer needs a website at yet more expense.

If we charged £5 for a print, we'd have to sell probably twice the amount of prints that day just to make the same amount of money. That means more work for the poor soul manning the onsite printing and more photo paper and ink expenses. There is no guarantee that people will even buy images so selling photos at £5 could make a bad day even worse and photographers could end up making a loss at shows, it is not unheard of and normally happens on 1 occasion per season.

I can take a fairly good photo with a £150 bog standard camera, like below:
14.jpg


A good photographer however always strives to take the best image that they can, I would not be happy selling the above photo as I know with the right equipment it can be so much better, like below for example:
28209_397856192922_502157922_4381263_1807272_n.jpg


We are also competing against the masses who turn up to shows with their bog standard digital camera, so need to up our game and produce a photograph that is better than they can produce with the digicam. We don't just photograph in nice sunny conditions either, we shoot in all weathers if needs be, be it gale force winds or torrential rain, dark gloomy days etc. Our equipment is expensive because it's weatherproofed and build to withstand such adverse weather, and can cope in low light situations when most cameras would seriously struggle to even get the shot in focus, let alone good enough to sell.

So that's why we charge £10 a print and use expensive gear. I don't think it's too bad a price when all of the above things are considered...
 
Last edited:
KristmasKatt said:
But maybe you want to use it for a purpose the photographer wouldn't approve of, that would be another reason for him restricting copyright. Say he was at a drag hunt meet, and he sells copyright to you and subsequently you sell the image to be used in pro-hunt literature but he is fervently anti-blood sports and would hate to support anything associated with hunting.

Or maybe you sell the image but manipulate it in some way so that it no longer looks the same.

Can you see why photographers like to retain the copyright? It isn't just the financial issues, it is about professional integrety and reputation etc. The same as with music, many artists will restrict where their work can be used.

If you genuinely want the photographer to give up all rights to an image he has created then you are likely to have to pay a significant amount. If you just want to use it for personal purposes then the photographer will most likely be happy to agree something, likewise he will likely agree lowscale commercial use like classified ads.

Generally photographers are reasonable, I've been through getting permission for commercial use with DH. He is an artist, when he was a teenager he did some drawings based upon photographs he found in books and magazines, at the time it was just for his own pleasure. Since then he has become a professional, he sells original drawings and reproductions of his drawings, he had interest from people wanting to buy some of these old images. So retrospectively we had to approach the photographers, one in particular was owned by a newspaper group but still they were happy for the picture to be used for free.

At the end of the day if you want the photographer to not be able to potentially make money out of images of you then the only way to do it is to ask them not to photograph you. As they always have the right to refuse to sell copyright.
Click to expand...

It really is quite simple to me. If I pay to buy something I actually want value. I do not get value from just buying a print. What I choose to do with it afterwards is irrelevant. In the situation you mentioned I really couldn't care less whether they were pro or anti hunt yada yada or which side I chose to use it for. I am more likely to give credit to a photographer who I believe is giving me value for money (as in selling the entire copyright) then someone fleecing me which is how I honestly feel when I see the prices that are charged for some prints.

Plus, the charge already put on photos (£10+ for a single print) is already too much for a piece of paper with colour on it. To charge even more than that just so we can put the image anywhere we want shows what gall some photographers have and why they need to get with the times.
 
Well no one is forcing you to buy the pictures!

If you don't think something is worth the money to you personally then that is your choice to make, it doesn't mean the person producing the product is wrong. I consider a VW golf is a rip off for a car that is a Seat Leon with a bit of window dressing but I doubts VW will listen to me!

We all have different values about what we are prepared to pay for and if you have such a low opinion of the product pro photographers offer then you can always take your own photos. Just don't steal them from a website, that is what the thread is about.
 
HuggyBear said:
Plus, the charge already put on photos (£10+ for a single print) is already too much for a piece of paper with colour on it. To charge even more than that just so we can put the image anywhere we want shows what gall some photographers have and why they need to get with the times.
Click to expand...

But it's the value behind the photo. Hence why a print that is limited edition and 1 of say 50 could be worth £5000, but if the same print were replicated hundreds of times and sold it would only be worth £50. If I were to sell you a photo that only you had the rights to, it would be worth a lot more than if I were to sell you a copy and I still held the copyright.

You don't buy a cd/dvd/painting and automatically buy the copyright to it do you?
 
Twizzle - I think you are putting your values on the paying public. I would have bought either of those shots....but I wouldn't pay more for the second one! All I want is a copy of an image to remember the day by, and to be able to display it in multiple locations, at a reasonable price.

As an ex-boss of mine used to say to me - don't give the client a Rolls Royce if they are paying for a Ford Mondeo!

We can all do things better/to a higher quality - but if the client doesn't want to pay those prices, then we can equally well do what they want and charge them less. That's just knowing how to run a business.

ETA: And when I buy a CD I don't buy the copyright, no, but I *am* allowed to put it on my CD player, make a copy for personal use in my lorry, put it on my computer, iPod and iPhone. With pics, I expect to be able to hang a print in the kitchen, have one on the computer and put one on Facebook - it is exactly the same thing, different ways of personally using the same item.
 
KristmasKatt said:
Well no one is forcing you to buy the pictures!


.
Click to expand...

Completely. I don't buy off pro photographers at events because I stand by what I say. I do take my own photos and I am sure I am not alone

Twizzel said:
But it's the value behind the photo. Hence why a print that is limited edition and 1 of say 50 could be worth £5000, but if the same print were replicated hundreds of times and sold it would only be worth £50. If I were to sell you a photo that only you had the rights to, it would be worth a lot more than if I were to sell you a copy and I still held the copyright.

You don't buy a cd/dvd/painting and automatically buy the copyright to it do you?
Click to expand...

If the CD/DVD recording was of ME then yes I would. If it was of Justin Timberlake of course I wouldn't. There is a big difference. Plus, I also download via itunes and it is great because I have the song on the computer, ipod and phone for one price. Value.

You won't make any money at all if no one bought the photos. A lot of photographers are struggling to make ends meet. That is clear from previous threads. You either get with the times, give people what they want or your venture fails.
 
That's fair enough but why should a photographer settle to produce sub standard work? It's a bit like competing- you don't go to an event with the aim of coming second or third, you want to perform the best you can so that you can (hopefully) win.

Those 2 photos were taken in similar light situations, however it's when the weather is dull and grey that event photographers need the expensive equipment in order to cover a show, for example this image was taken on a grey gloomy day in September with the same camera that took the first image in my last post-
AndrewNicholsonSilburyHill2.jpg


And this one was taken with the same camera/lens as the 2nd image in my last post, in similar light conditions
28209_397625867922_502157922_4375871_5290345_n.jpg


The first is nowhere near the level of quality that a reputable photographer would require to sell. Therefore we don't have substandard equipment, we have equipment that will do the job both in good and poor light, which is why our equipment is so expensive.

Plus as I said we need to be one step above everybody who turns up to a show with their digital camera, otherwise we would never sell any images.
 
It isn't about 'settling' to produce sub-standard work - it's about coming up with a product people want to buy, at a price they are willing to pay, whilst still making money yourself. It's business, not a competition. I could shell out X thousands for kit for my business, but at the end of the day, it would not improve my product to such a degree that I would make that back in what I consider to be a reasonable time-frame, unless I increased my prices to a level which I know the market cannot sustain.

It's no skin off my nose as a consumer if you want to have the most expensive kit and produce a better image than other photographers out there, just to show you can - but don't confuse that with the simple business issue here, which is that currently photographers seem (although HHO is a bit of a bubble and probably not representative of the industry as a whole) to be charging more for a product than people are willing to pay on a regular basis, and getting themselves worked up over copyright when the consumer just wants to be able to display the image in whatever way they choose. You have to balance the ability to take good shots on a bad weather day with the number of shots you sell on a sunny day vs a horrid day. If the maths dictates that you stick with the £150 camera and only take pictures in decent light, because despite the 2K of equipment you still don't sell enough to make the purchase costs back in a reasonable time (say a year), then as a business person you'd be nuts to buy the more expensive stuff.
 
HuggyBear said:
Plus, I also download via itunes and it is great because I have the song on the computer, ipod and phone for one price. Value.
Click to expand...

If you read the thread I linked to you will see that some photographers already do this type of deal, but you aren't comparing like with like.

Downloading a song on itunes and making a copy for the car/phone/ipod is private use, you can't download off itunes and play the song in a nightclub or bar. The equivalent is buying a print and keeping a scan on the computer as your screensaver, and making a copy to have at work. Techincally that is breach of copyright unless (like on itunes) there is permission for personal use, but most photographers don't have a problem. They have a problem when the original image isn't paid for at all because it is stolen off a website (equivalent of a pirate DVD), or when the image is reproduced for commercial reasons without permission.
 
SpottedCat said:
It isn't about 'settling' to produce sub-standard work - it's about coming up with a product people want to buy, at a price they are willing to pay, whilst still making money yourself. It's business, not a competition. I could shell out X thousands for kit for my business, but at the end of the day, it would not improve my product to such a degree that I would make that back in what I consider to be a reasonable time-frame, unless I increased my prices to a level which I know the market cannot sustain.

It's no skin off my nose as a consumer if you want to have the most expensive kit and produce a better image than other photographers out there, just to show you can - but don't confuse that with the simple business issue here, which is that currently photographers seem (although HHO is a bit of a bubble and probably not representative of the industry as a whole) to be charging more for a product than people are willing to pay on a regular basis, and getting themselves worked up over copyright when the consumer just wants to be able to display the image in whatever way they choose. You have to balance the ability to take good shots on a bad weather day with the number of shots you sell on a sunny day vs a horrid day. If the maths dictates that you stick with the £150 camera and only take pictures in decent light, because despite the 2K of equipment you still don't sell enough to make the purchase costs back in a reasonable time (say a year), then as a business person you'd be nuts to buy the more expensive stuff.
Click to expand...


It's not that I want the expensive kit, it's the fact I NEED it. I have a lens capable of taking great shots in both good and poor light. A £150 camera is only really capable of turning out ok photos in good light. You cannot only turn up to an event if the light is good, the organisers would never book you again and your business would end up down the drain in a matter of months.
 
SpottedCat said:
It isn't about 'settling' to produce sub-standard work - it's about coming up with a product people want to buy, at a price they are willing to pay, whilst still making money yourself. It's business, not a competition. I could shell out X thousands for kit for my business, but at the end of the day, it would not improve my product to such a degree that I would make that back in what I consider to be a reasonable time-frame, unless I increased my prices to a level which I know the market cannot sustain.

It's no skin off my nose as a consumer if you want to have the most expensive kit and produce a better image than other photographers out there, just to show you can - but don't confuse that with the simple business issue here, which is that currently photographers seem (although HHO is a bit of a bubble and probably not representative of the industry as a whole) to be charging more for a product than people are willing to pay on a regular basis, and getting themselves worked up over copyright when the consumer just wants to be able to display the image in whatever way they choose. You have to balance the ability to take good shots on a bad weather day with the number of shots you sell on a sunny day vs a horrid day. If the maths dictates that you stick with the £150 camera and only take pictures in decent light, because despite the 2K of equipment you still don't sell enough to make the purchase costs back in a reasonable time (say a year), then as a business person you'd be nuts to buy the more expensive stuff.
Click to expand...

Once again, you've beaten me to what I would say and said it far more eloquently than I could!

I ditto this post.
 
I understand that! But the point is that photographers need to find a way of making their business more viable - and I am completely unconvinced that getting hot under the collar about clients buying an image and scanning it to facebook is the solution. A better alternative is looking at what the client wants, pricing accordingly, and then working out if you can make any money.

To me, the people who lift a watermarked image are irrelevant in a business sense because they were not going to buy at your prices anyway - therefore you either have to accept it happens, find a way of stopping it (almost impossible if you want your pics on the web), or offer a product which is priced so competitively that those people will pay it rather than lift the image. If you offered a FB resolution image for the equivalent price of a single or a ringtone, then I bet the people who lift images would pay it - that could be better than the status quo which is them lifting and you getting nothing....but it may also mean people shift to buying those almost exclusively instead. In which case photographers might as well have put up with the image lifting and not made such a fuss! There is a potential downside to shouting about this too.....

I have no idea how photographers come up with their pricing policies - mine was all very carefully worked out based on me doing 2.5 billable days of work per week to give me the base income I need. But if that gave me an hourly rate which clients would not pay, then I'd either need to rethink my product, or go and do something else! Sometimes I have clients who baulk at the cost of something - so I offer them the cheaper version with an explanation of the limitations. 9 times out of 10 they go for the original one, sometimes they don't, then pay for the original one later anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top