Nabble - StockPhoto

New

2011-12-25T23:26:02Z

Hello Everyone ,
I am new this forum .

Punch Stock?

2011-09-21T03:26:24Z

Hi All

A representative from Punch Stock sent an email requesting he contact me about representing my stock work.

It sounds like Punch Stock distributes further - back into Corbis and Veer.

Just wondering what the feeling is around Punch Stock. This sounds like a good thing - is it?

Any idea what sort of return per image pa one might one expect from lifestyle, business, health and education type images?

Regards
Alistair

Re: DMCA safe harbour provisions

2011-09-17T22:31:07Z

Jeremey. In a nutshell yes. I'd expand to:

3. To benefit from the safe harbour provisions the provider must be
unaware that it is hosting infringing content, or, when notified by the
copyright owner, expeditiously remove it.

and there is no reference to "to an unmonitored account" so I'd drop that

presumably you have the full text of §512 available

ds

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Jeremy Nicholl <mail@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Would the following be a reasonably accurate summary of the DMCA safe
> harbour provisions?
>
> 1. The safe harbour is intended to protect what the DMCA defines as
> internet service providers, in particular those that host third party
> content over which they have little or no control. The classic
> example would be YouTube.
> 2. The objective is to prevent the provider from being liable for
> infringing content uploaded by a third party to an unmonitored
> account.
> 3. To benefit from the safe harbour provisions the provider must be
> unaware that it is hosting infringing content.
>
> I'm not looking for a definitive breakdown, just an accurate precis.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeremy Nicholl
> --
> Jeremy Nicholl Photography
> http://www.jeremynicholl.com
> http://www.jeremynichollarchive.com
> http://twitter.com/Russian_Photos
> Tel: + 7 495 360 0870
>
>
>

--
-----
david sanger photography llc
travel :: stock :: photography :: technology
updates at www.davidsanger.com
t 510-526-0800
m 510-526-2800

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Zenfolio

2011-09-15T23:13:53Z

I use Zen and I am really happy with them. If you have a paypall account you should visit their website however. Anyone with a paypall account can send invoices online with a "pay=here" button. This gives you the ability to take cards today.

Zenfolio however has served me well. I swithced from Printroom to Zenfolio about a year ago. Zenfolio is worht the cost IMHO.

www.PortraitsByBritt.com

Re: Zenfolio

2011-09-15T06:58:08Z

Yep - only been using it for a short time but so far works just fine. One
of the reasons that I chose to go with Zenfolio was that you have the
ability to ship worldwide

Rick Sheremeta

AlpenGlow Productions, Inc.

445 Buffalo Lane

P.O. Box 244

Somers, MT 59932

Phone/Fax (406) 857-2116

Cell (406) 871-7733

<http://www.alpenglowproductions.com/> www.alpenglowproductions.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Zenfolio

2011-09-15T06:17:15Z

Hi Bill:

I use Zenfolio and highly recommend it. It depends what you are doing with it of course, but for events, fine-art print sales and for digital downloads, it works well.

The amount of features are pretty amazing, and you can set up custom digital products, which you pay a small percentage on as long as you are on the $100/yr or $250/yr plan.

They take a 4% fee for self-fulfilled orders (prints, digital, etc) if you have their $100/yr plan, and nothing for their $250/yr plan.

They take 8% if they supply the file to your client.

You might also want to check out this site. They have an integrated cart and it is just a one time fee if you don't want their hosting:

http://www.creativemotiondesign.com/

I'd recommend their html option due to the iPhone and iPad.

All the best,

Andrew

Andrew Darlow
Editor, The Imaging Buffet
http://www.imagingbuffet.com
Author, 301 Inkjet Tips and Techniques:
An Essential Printing Resource for Photographers - http://www.inkjettips.com
and
Pet Photography 101:
Tips for Taking Better Photos of Your Dog or Cat - http://www.PhotoPetTips.com
http://facebook.com/andrewdarlow

On Sep 14, 2011, at 12:50 PM, grantb@... wrote:

> Does anyone here use Zenfolio? I am looking for a way to include a shopping cart and take credit cards.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill Grant
>
> Bill Grant Photography
> http://www.visualjourney.com
>

Zenfolio

2011-09-14T09:50:01Z

Does anyone here use Zenfolio? I am looking for a way to include a shopping cart and take credit cards.

Regards,

Bill Grant

Bill Grant Photography
http://www.visualjourney.com

DMCA safe harbour provisions

2011-09-13T07:20:57Z

Would the following be a reasonably accurate summary of the DMCA safe
harbour provisions?

1. The safe harbour is intended to protect what the DMCA defines as
internet service providers, in particular those that host third party
content over which they have little or no control. The classic
example would be YouTube.
2. The objective is to prevent the provider from being liable for
infringing content uploaded by a third party to an unmonitored
account.
3. To benefit from the safe harbour provisions the provider must be
unaware that it is hosting infringing content.

I'm not looking for a definitive breakdown, just an accurate precis.

Thanks,

Jeremy Nicholl
--
Jeremy Nicholl Photography
http://www.jeremynicholl.com
http://www.jeremynichollarchive.com
http://twitter.com/Russian_Photos
Tel: + 7 495 360 0870

Re: Multiple infringements

2011-09-06T23:11:58Z

Jeremy,
This is an interesting point of view, I don't have the numbers

I actually think that another source of infringements are those you are
licensing because they become more availabe and used that those who are not.
The assumption is that those you are license and being used are then being
indexed by search engines and become noticeable,

From: Jeremy Nicholl <mail@...>
Reply-To: <STOCKPHOTO@...>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 10:04:08 +0400
To: <STOCKPHOTO@...>
Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Multiple infringements

What's the most times anyone has found a single one of their images
stolen? I'm thinking of when various people steal it and the theft
goes viral, just being repeated over & over. 100 times? 500?
Thousands?

Jeremy Nicholl
--
Jeremy Nicholl Photography
http://www.jeremynicholl.com
http://www.jeremynichollarchive.com
http://twitter.com/Russian_Photos
Tel: + 7 495 360 0870

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Multiple infringements

2011-09-06T23:04:08Z

What's the most times anyone has found a single one of their images
stolen? I'm thinking of when various people steal it and the theft
goes viral, just being repeated over & over. 100 times? 500?
Thousands?

Jeremy Nicholl
--
Jeremy Nicholl Photography
http://www.jeremynicholl.com
http://www.jeremynichollarchive.com
http://twitter.com/Russian_Photos
Tel: + 7 495 360 0870

Re: Re Euro equivalent of DMCA takedown?

2011-09-06T08:34:44Z

--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., Jeremy Nicholl <mail@...> wrote:

>
> Does anyone know if there is a European Union equivalent of the DMCA
> takedown notice for notifying ISPs of infringing material? I recall
> reading somewhere recently that there is, but I don't remember the
> details or where I read it; and I'd never heard of it before.
>
> Anyone have any ideas what law I could be thinking of?
>
> Jeremy Nicholl
> --
> Jeremy Nicholl Photography
> http://www.jeremynicholl.com
> http://www.jeremynichollarchive.com
> http://twitter.com/Russian_Photos
> Tel: + 7 495 360 0870
>

The equivalent of DMCA is the EUCD in the European Union .
Please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive

jp lescourret

Re Euro equivalent of DMCA takedown?

2011-09-02T02:41:49Z

Does anyone know if there is a European Union equivalent of the DMCA
takedown notice for notifying ISPs of infringing material? I recall
reading somewhere recently that there is, but I don't remember the
details or where I read it; and I'd never heard of it before.

Anyone have any ideas what law I could be thinking of?

Jeremy Nicholl
--
Jeremy Nicholl Photography
http://www.jeremynicholl.com
http://www.jeremynichollarchive.com
http://twitter.com/Russian_Photos
Tel: + 7 495 360 0870

Re: Non-exclusive RM

2011-09-01T18:23:20Z

A somewhat dated list on the site of this forum....
http://www.stockphoto.net/libraries/index.php#search

Check "United States" rather than "USA" in the location searchbox for a US list.

Re: Non-exclusive RM

2011-09-01T17:52:26Z

Though not all-encompassing and not to be used alone, the section on Stock Photo Agencies in "Photographer's Market" (Writers Digest Books) can be a helpful aid when screening potential distributors.

Carl May

--- On Tue, 8/30/11, angiephotographer <angieknostphoto@...> wrote:

From: angiephotographer <angieknostphoto@...>
Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Non-exclusive RM
To: STOCKPHOTO@...
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2011, 11:46 AM

Does anyone here know which agencies will accept non-exclusive Rights Managed images? Besides Alamy?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Non-exclusive RM

2011-08-31T14:53:02Z

Hi Angie,

There are probably hundreds of stock distributors that accept non-exclusive RM images. Our agency, Picade, does for example, as does Mira, another photographer-owned agency. The hard part is finding a distributor that is a good fit for your work. Different distributors have different specialties, different needs, and different requirements. There are some websites that list some of the distributors, but it is a matter of researching out those that deal with your type of work.

John

---
Chairman, Picade, LLC - a photographer-owned stock and assignment agency

John G. Blair Studio
Occidental, California
(about an hour north of the Bay Area)
http://www.jgblairphoto.com - general photography
http://www.johngblairstudio.com - commercial and stock photography
http://www.johngblair.com - author website

On Aug 30, 2011, at 11:46 AM, angiephotographer wrote:

> Does anyone here know which agencies will accept non-exclusive Rights Managed images? Besides Alamy?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Non-exclusive RM

2011-08-30T15:57:43Z

They have changed their contract.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Glenn Zumwalt
<glenn.zumwalt@...> wrote:

> Unless they have changed their contract, age is photo-exclusive.
>
> __________________________
> Glenn Zumwalt
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> AGE Fotostock, Photo Researchers are a couple.
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:46 PM, angiephotographer
> <angieknostphoto@...> wrote:
>> Does anyone here know which agencies will accept non-exclusive Rights
> Managed images? Besides Alamy?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
> Reproduction of STOCKPHOTO posts require permission of author
> Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
> STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
> STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
-Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key: 0x65115E4C
Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT Images@Alamy: http://bit.ly/aMH6Qd

RE: Non-exclusive RM

2011-08-30T15:56:22Z

Unless they have changed their contract, age is photo-exclusive.

__________________________
Glenn Zumwalt

-----Original Message-----

AGE Fotostock, Photo Researchers are a couple.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:46 PM, angiephotographer
<angieknostphoto@...> wrote:
> Does anyone here know which agencies will accept non-exclusive Rights
Managed images? Besides Alamy?

Re: Non-exclusive RM

2011-08-30T15:26:15Z

AGE Fotostock, Photo Researchers are a couple.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:46 PM, angiephotographer
<angieknostphoto@...> wrote:

> Does anyone here know which agencies will accept non-exclusive Rights Managed images? Besides Alamy?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
> Reproduction of STOCKPHOTO posts require permission of author
> Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
> STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
> STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Non-exclusive RM

2011-08-30T11:46:04Z

Does anyone here know which agencies will accept non-exclusive Rights Managed images? Besides Alamy?

Foreign infringers operating in the US

2011-08-26T05:45:37Z

Filing a DMCA notice will force a service provider to remove the work,
usually. If they don't, they then can be sued as bad guys. Unfortunately,
they will usually refuse to identify the company or individual behind the
piracy. A subpoena to an ISP from US court, $350 + lawyer will compel them
to reveal the identity. This means filing a "John Doe" or John & Jane Does"
case and using the court as a lever

More and more US sites use "private" registrations to hide behind and it is
a pity that US ISPs aren't required to post who the owners of sites are, it
sure would be easier on us.

Cheers,

Leif
--
CONFIDENTIAL
This message is only intended for the use of the individual or entity to who
it is addressed. It may contain information that is copyrighted, privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended
recipient, please do not copy disseminate, or distribute this communication,
by e-mail or otherwise.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Foreign infringers operating in the US

2011-08-26T03:51:19Z

If an infringing foreign website is registered in the US, hosted in
the US and the actual physical servers are in the US, do I have any
options to go after them under US copyright law?

I think the catch is that the US host will simply tell me to file a
DMCA takedown request, then wash their hands of the affair.

But in my view the host is conspiring in the infringement, not
because they're hosting, but because their USP is that they're
selling private hosting to "protect your identity". By doing so they
make it impossible to identify the site's real owner: the only people
I can easily contact are the hosting company.

Anyone had any experience of his kind of situation?

Jeremy Nicholl
--
Jeremy Nicholl Photography
http://www.jeremynicholl.com
http://www.jeremynichollarchive.com
http://twitter.com/Russian_Photos
Tel: + 7 495 360 0870

Chasing foreign thieves

2011-08-25T04:58:14Z

I realise this is almost certainly a waste of time, but has anyone
here had any success chasing infringements in:
Thailand
Korea
Hong Kong
Singapore

I'm also interested in Italy: GQ Italia seem to have nicked some
images for their website.

Any advice/success stories/legal contacts welcome.

Jeremy Nicholl

--
Jeremy Nicholl Photography
http://www.jeremynicholl.com
http://www.jeremynichollarchive.com
http://twitter.com/Russian_Photos
Tel: + 7 495 360 0870

Re: Updated version of the IPTC-PLUS Metadata Panel for Adobe Bridge availalbe

2011-08-19T13:45:53Z

At 02:32 PM 8/19/2011, Stockphoto Seller wrote:
>Are they working on releases for other photo editing and archiving
>software by other companies? It doesn't seem right that a general
>standard for image labeling should be fit only for one program at one company.

Carl:

I think I understand your question, but it's not as simple as you
might think. The IPTC Extension Schema Specifications were released
in 2008, along with updates to the IPTC Core. The PLUS schema spec's
have been available since before that time.

Lightroom now has the IPTC Extension fields included in the latest
version. In addition, there is a plug-in from Timothy Armes that
allows one to add PLUS metadata to files in Lightroom
(http://www.photographers-toolbox.com/products/plusforlightroom.php).

However, besides Adobe, I'm not aware of any other photo editing and
archiving software applications that have an open enough architecture
to allow the approach taken by the IPTC and PLUS for use with
Bridge. This was possible because it was possible to create a
javascript driven panel that ties into the Adobe Architecture for the
rest of the heavy lifting.

Hertwig van Zwietering of IDimager has already rev'd his application
to support IPTC Extension (both reading and writing)... IIRC, it was
available in that program even before Adobe came out with the current
level of support for IPTC Extension in Creative Suite 5 (i.e. 2009 or 2010).

It is possible to "map" the values from the IPTC Extension or PLUS to
fields within Extensis Portfolio, but I don't know how easy it would
be to modify and have Portfolio update those values in the original
file. One could hope that Extensis will address this in future
releases, but much is up to the end users asking for this feature.

The metadata machinations of Apple Aperture is handled at the OS
level, so I don't know how IPTC or PLUS could do anything, except to
encourage Apple to make the necessary updates. Again, if users would
like to see this, they need to ask for it.

Phase One has come out with a new version of Media Pro, but it's
still only supporting IPTC Core.

Ditto for most other applications, all which have their own
proprietary way of reading and writing metadata.

The only other exception I can think of is ExifTool, which is a
command line tool for reading and writing a wide variety of metadata
formats, including IPTC Extension and PLUS. However it's not
something I would recommend for all to use.

One last option, if you only need to be able to "read" the metadata
in a number of images is the Embedded Metadata Extraction Tool (EMET)
that was developed by ArtStor for their Library of Congress
project. It's open source, and can be used by anyone. Details at:
http://www.artstor.org/global/g-html/download-emet-public.html

The only recommendation I can make would be to contact your preferred
vendor of photo editing/archiving software and ask you when you can
expect support for these additional metadata schemas. If there are
enough requests from users, any vendor should move that up in the
priority list of features they are working on.

David

--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
Need Keywords for your database? Get the Controlled Vocabulary Solution
http://controlledvocabulary.com/products/ support for a dozen of the
most popular imaging applications from Adobe Bridge to Photo Mechanic.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Updated version of the IPTC-PLUS Metadata Panel for Adobe Bridge availalbe

2011-08-19T12:32:24Z

Are they working on releases for other photo editing and archiving software by other companies? It doesn't seem right that a general standard for image labeling should be fit only for one program at one company.
Carl May

--- On Fri, 8/19/11, David Riecks <david@...> wrote:

From: David Riecks <david@...>
Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Updated version of the IPTC-PLUS Metadata Panel for Adobe Bridge availalbe
To: STOCKPHOTO@...
Date: Friday, August 19, 2011, 7:41 AM

All:

The IPTC have just released version 4 of the

IPTC-PLUS Metadata panel, updated installer script and a ReadMe file.

This option for Adobe Bridge allows you to embedd

IPTC Core, IPTC Extension and PLUS fields into many popular image file formats.

This panel replaces all previous versions as a

maintenance release and fixes this error:

·processing time values (of date and time

fields) including fractions of a second caused a lock up of the script

The installer script is now able to work with

Adobe CS 5.5 installed on your computer and with

the 64-bit version of Photoshop on Windows PCs.

You can download this file by registering at:

http://www.iptc.org/goto/?iptcplustoolkitadobecs

If you previously registered, you should have

received an email directly, check your inbox (or

junk mail folder) for a more directly URL.

David

--

David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)

Need Keywords for your database? Get the Controlled Vocabulary Solution

http://controlledvocabulary.com/products/ support for a dozen of the

most popular imaging applications from Adobe Bridge to Photo Mechanic.

--

David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)

Need Keywords for your database? Get the Controlled Vocabulary Solution

http://controlledvocabulary.com/products/ support for a dozen of the

most popular imaging applications from Adobe Bridge to Photo Mechanic.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Updated version of the IPTC-PLUS Metadata Panel for Adobe Bridge availalbe

2011-08-19T07:41:52Z

All:

The IPTC have just released version 4 of the
IPTC-PLUS Metadata panel, updated installer script and a ReadMe file.

This option for Adobe Bridge allows you to embedd
IPTC Core, IPTC Extension and PLUS fields into many popular image file formats.

This panel replaces all previous versions as a
maintenance release and fixes this error:

·processing time values (of date and time
fields) including fractions of a second caused a lock up of the script

The installer script is now able to work with
Adobe CS 5.5 installed on your computer and with
the 64-bit version of Photoshop on Windows PCs.

You can download this file by registering at:
http://www.iptc.org/goto/?iptcplustoolkitadobecs

If you previously registered, you should have
received an email directly, check your inbox (or
junk mail folder) for a more directly URL.

David
--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
Need Keywords for your database? Get the Controlled Vocabulary Solution
http://controlledvocabulary.com/products/ support for a dozen of the
most popular imaging applications from Adobe Bridge to Photo Mechanic.

--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
Need Keywords for your database? Get the Controlled Vocabulary Solution
http://controlledvocabulary.com/products/ support for a dozen of the
most popular imaging applications from Adobe Bridge to Photo Mechanic.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Re: Quote for extended use

2011-08-18T19:42:09Z

On Aug 18, 2011, at 11:06 AM, alfred.molon wrote:
>
>
> So I guess, there must be a maximum fee which shouldn't be exceeded, but how much would that be? What is the cost of replacing an image, once a book has gone into production?
> --

In my experience, if a publisher is going out of their way to obtain an image from an independent photographer, then it is likely to be one that would be hard for them to replace going through the usual large stock agencies. I think this gives you more leverage than with the normal image they would use.

Stephen

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Re: Quote for extended use

2011-08-18T18:07:05Z

Alfred,

There is no single answer to your question. And most of us are not willing to state a dollar amount publicly even if we have one. Amounts will even vary from one person to the next in the permissions department of the publisher you are dealing with, depending on their experience in the company, among other things.

What is much more common these days is that the publisher, upon learning that it cannot get away with a blanket rights grab without paying a proper fee for it, will cut back on one or more of the multiplying factors such as translation rights in all languages or all future editions. Or they will get real about the derivative titles and be more specific about what they really need. They start out asking for all eventualities because they know there are all sorts of unsophisticated photo sources that will immediately cave in for whatever they request. The permissions people who are not mere pixel pushers will also know the suggested rates in the more common pricing programs such as fotoQuote and Hindsight and the RM pricing on the Getty and Corbis websites.

As Laura suggests, you can simply not make any objectionable parts of what the publisher is requesting available to them. And, as she also indicates, some photo sources are simply not signing the permissions forms that word everything to the publisher's advantage--all the necessary rights and proper terms should be stated on your invoice. However, with the publisher in this particular case, if you do not sign the permission form and do not come up with a fee for the blanket rights they are requesting, they will usually not accept an invoice with your terms and will usually get back to you asking for quotes for the rights originally requested. Most of their permissions people do this to me even though some of them have known our agency for years and I have sent their permission form signed after I have made extensive alterations to it. So, with this publisher, you can sometimes save quite a bit of time by sending your invoice for the blanket rights
and let them back off from that.

Just a couple of additional items to keep in m,ind with this publisher. They are one of the several bigger educational conglomerates that, some years back, decided they could dictate terms and prices for image usage because they were such a big part of the business that photo sources depended on their business for survival. At that time, they got most of the image distributors they were using to sign an agreement with prices and all kinds of terms in their favor. They also made deals for big discounts with the conglomerate distributors like Getty and Corbis with prices based on usage of a large quantity of images in a given period of time. In my opinion, here's the main point: with all their deals, they still chose to use your image. Logic tells you they couldn't obtain what it shows easily from their usual connections. Accordingly, be fair with your fees, but don't be shy. Be clear on the requested rights that are producing your fees and they will
understand. Don't worry, they'll get back to you on anything they refuse to pay, and that is simply an opportunity to suggest how the rights requested might be altered to lower your total.

Yet another thing to recall is that you should not be negotiating in the first place if there are not points in pricing and terms at which you are willing to say "no." Sometimes the other party will fish until they learn what those points are. And when you deal with the same permissions person a few times, they will already know your limits and whether or not your limits are already incorporated in your invoice.

One of the former Stockphoto regulars who has not posted for quite a while (hope he is okay) had an interesting and simple alternative to all of the negotiating tactics that might be employed to one request or another. When negotiations started to get tiresome, he would say "What is the most you are paying for an image in this project?" If the answer sounded honest and was enough to satisfy him, he would then say "That's my fee, too." The fun part is, he usually got it.

Carl May

--- On Thu, 8/18/11, alfred.molon <yahoo@...> wrote:

From: alfred.molon <yahoo@...>
Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: Quote for extended use
To: STOCKPHOTO@...
Date: Thursday, August 18, 2011, 11:06 AM

Thanks for all replies and especially Carl's one which was very detailed.

I'm just wondering that if I start applying multiples to the basic fee and end up with a fee in the thousands of USD, the publisher might consider replacing the image with another one, because it might be less expensive even considering all replacement costs.

So I guess, there must be a maximum fee which shouldn't be exceeded, but how much would that be? What is the cost of replacing an image, once a book has gone into production?
--

Alfred Molon
www.molon.de

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Quote for extended use

2011-08-18T11:06:38Z

Thanks for all replies and especially Carl's one which was very detailed.

I'm just wondering that if I start applying multiples to the basic fee and end up with a fee in the thousands of USD, the publisher might consider replacing the image with another one, because it might be less expensive even considering all replacement costs.

So I guess, there must be a maximum fee which shouldn't be exceeded, but how much would that be? What is the cost of replacing an image, once a book has gone into production?
--

Alfred Molon
www.molon.de

Re: Quote for extended use -no more textbooks

2011-08-18T09:59:59Z

Hi David,

I do know what you mean. But actually £1 could be way too high!

When you licence an image for $100 for a text book print run of 100,000 how much is each end user paying for that picture?

Let's think a bit about:

1) what you or I would in practice pay for one of our children to use an image in a one-off homework project?

2) how much we would anticipate out child's school paying in an annual subscription to access 1 million high quality images?

3) where will they get these pictures if we don't provide them?

Regards,

Ian Murray

> £1 for license. This Ian is too scary. I know I am competing with microstock and RF but at this level I am out. I set my price and still make sales, I see no reason to try and compete for these low level sales.
>
> David B

Re: Quote for extended use -no more textbooks

2011-08-18T08:05:32Z

I totally agree with Ianâs thinking. The education market is totally different than it was ten or more years ago and for the future it must be addressed in a totally different way. Images are going to be purchased by individual students or individual school systems for very limited and narrow uses. The big publishers will no longer have tyrannical hold on access to the education customer. Individual students will be making decisions about the images they access and photographers must find an effective way to deliver their images directly to students and collect small fees for such access.

One step in this direction is Encyclopaedia Britannicaâs âImage Questâ which makes a database of 2 million images available for direct student access. The database was put together by Universal Images Group. In the initial launch of this product in the 25,000 student Dallas school system there were 177,000 transactions in the first three months â" and in that period of time they are just learning to use the system. Photographers need to begin to think about a pricing system where they are paid for each transaction.

The problems I have with Image Quest are that the price EB is charging is way too low (about 2.3 cents per transaction), EB takes 50% of the fee collected, UIG gets 30%, and the agency that supplied the image gets 20% which it must split with the image creator. The creator ends up with about 3/10s of a penny or less for each transaction. I think the price can raised and a lot of the middle men costs taken out of the supply chain, but one way or another, this is the direction the Internet facilitated education market is headed. Remember there are 52 million students in the U.S. alone and each one will be making individual decision about the images they want to see.

For more information about Image Quest see: http://www.photolicensingoptions.com/ViewArticle.aspx?code=JHP2413

Regards

Jim Pickerell

> Whether this next wave of educational use of the internet will truly take-off remains to be seen but as far as I am concerned it is a market worth being in and I can say with certainty that it is attracting large investment from big business.
>
> The very significant difference now is that schools are more able to 'do it themselves' as long as they have the resources. They are less inclined to rely on packages bought in from publishers. Children now are expected to interact with and use resources - to select from what is available, to justify and evaluate their choices. Resources are held on 'learning platforms' rich with media files of different sorts accessible to all in the institution.
>
> Time will tell...
>
> Regards,
>
> Ian Murray
>
>

Re: Quote for extended use

2011-08-18T07:16:08Z

Great reply, Carl. I might also add that you may just license them the rights that you are comfortable licensing, without signing their agreement. If you do license your image for 20 years, make sure the fee is fair to you. Laura

--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., Stockphoto Seller <bpslistmail@...> wrote:

>
> Alfred,
> Â
> I know exactly the educational publisher with whom you are dealing. So will several others who check in here on Stockphoto. Though the publisher hasÂ tried other blanket rights grabs in recent years, the particular wording on this one for an extension of rights and uses for an existing edition of a title has a few new twists.
> Â
> First off, you will play hell trying to get them to run any kind of sales figures for your single image. Sales figures are closely held by educational publishers, and there is also the question of what constitutes a unit in a "print run"--especially units of digital items. I keep my eyes open and am sometimes able toÂ learn such figures for specific titles, just as there is sometimes a roundabout leak of whatÂ competitors are charging for uses in titles in which we also have images. I was also fortunate to have spent a decade budgeting and developing book projects as the Biology Editor for several major college publishers in the US. Accordingly, I try to approach pricing empirically to the degree I am able--which isn't very much sometimes.
> Â
> Being an extension of rights, your image in this case is already in the title, meaning the publisher has spent money to put it there (time and wages spent acquiring and deciding on the image, production work to put the image in the existing title[s], your prior permission fee, etc.) and would have to spend more to replace it. So they might threaten to replace your image as you negotiate, but they won't take that action lightly. Another thing to remember about the big corporate publishers: they are weak at record keeping over long periods of time, and we are talking about a long period of time in this request. All of this blanket request crap was started by the invasion of RF into educational photo markets. Publishing executives like the notion of paying a single modest fee and then never having to clear permission again for reuses. Even if there are permission limitations, photos that enter their corporate collection with some kind of extended usage have
> a good chance of being tossed in with the RF years from now because that is becoming their standard way of working.
> Â
> Not to bore you, but several years ago there was a news item to the effect that this publisher and one or two others of the big ones in the textbook arena had agreed to using PLUS procedures. Only they failed to pass this agreement on to the photo permissions department doing the actual permissions requests at the time. Maybe they have by now, but my mentions that I would be happy to work up a PLUS pricing package for the multiple uses rather than use our agency's own scheme have drawn no replies. Nonetheless, you could suggest aÂ PLUS approach if you are comfortable with those protocols.
> Â
> But here is how I am going aboutÂ a request like this oneÂ at this time, based somewhat on what happens with college books and their associated publications over time:
> Â
> First, I figure a fee for extended world rights in English requested for only the title already in existence--the title that already has your image in it, including printed textbook, e-book versions on various media and online, and all ancillaries associated with it. "Custom versions" are modifications of a title for use in a particular school or small set of schools, so I include them in pricing the ancillaries. A limit on units for the fee involved is included.
> Â
> Second, based on nothing more than publishing experience with educationalÂ titles in the US marketplace, I'll guess that there will be no more than two derivative titles (these are the derivatives, abridgements, split editions and all that stuff) from the main existing title at any given time in theÂ future. (For my areas of science publishing, there is frequently one derivative title from a successful text, but rarely two.) We give a modest discount for uses of images in derivative titles. So I come up with a fee for one edition of each of the two derivative titles, including e-books and ancillaries. And set a limit on the total units of each for the given fee.
> Â
> Third, for translations into all languages (American textbooks are seldom translated into more than two languages because education in most other developed countries is conducted differently), I take the full fee for the base text (not just the extension requested at this time) plus the full fees for the two derivatives and add 100 percent for translation rights in all languages for one edition. In other words, the global translation rights double the total fees for all the titles from what the total fees would be in English alone.
> Â
> Fourth, and the guessing gets even wilder here because we have no way of predicting the future of educational publications even a few years out and because competiton in college publishing has gone down with consolidation in the marketplace--meaning fewer new titles are being published for the basic course markets and existing titles will go through more editions--I'll guess at anywhere from two to four more editions of each of the three titles (main title and the two derivative titles) after their current or first editions depending on the market and add double to quadruple the reuse fee for each of the three titles and all their associated digital and print publications in all languagesÂ to the fee for one edition to cover all future editions. Sorry for the incredible run-on sentence.
> Â
> A lot of this is by way of trying to educate the client, the publisher, and make them aware of all they are asking for. I frequently say something like "I must assume you will exercise all the rights requested or you would not be asking for them."Â At each of the major steps above, I will give the cumulative fee so far in order that the client can see the gross monetary implications of what they are requesting. After all is laid out, what I have given is permission for use of an image worldwideÂ in all languages in all editions of a specific title and its directly associated publications, both digital and print, up to a stated quantity of units. If the publisher wants, I'll even take the limit off the units of the package for an additionalÂ fee.
> Â
> Guess what?Â Last winter,Â a publisherÂ actually paid the total fee arrived at by the above process for 22 of our images in one of their major textbook titles. Wow! Almost worth an article in PDN. Now the process suggested is very fair; but anyone who has been in educational publishing for ten minutes should know some of the images will not be reused in the future,Â some of the ancillaries are not going to happen, some of the derivative titles are not going to happen, and some of the translations are certainly not going to happen. But the photo source is forced to charge aÂ reasonable estimated fee for them because the rightsÂ are granted and could be exercised. It makes far more sense for an educationalÂ publisher to requestÂ reuse permissions for what is actually needed with each new edition; the costÂ for an in-houseÂ permissions editor or freelancer to go through the routine is far less than the cost of blanket rights that are not exercised. And
> rights for a translation are often acquired by someone working for the foreign publisher doing the translation, costing the original publisher nothing for reuse permissions in other languages.
> Â
> Yikes, anyone still reading at this point is a real trooper. There are lots of other schemes one might reasonably applyÂ other than the one I am currently using, so please don't think the above isÂ intended as if it was passed to me by a higher being while I was hallucinating in the desert.Â But in no case should any legitimate professional photo source throw up their arms and go RF in answer to a request like this.
> Â
> Carl May
>
> --- On Tue, 8/16/11, alfred.molon <yahoo@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: alfred.molon <yahoo@...>
> Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: Quote for extended use
> To: STOCKPHOTO@...
> Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2011, 4:21 AM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> Thanks for the reply Carl. I just checked:
>
> - all editions
> - (print versions) derivatives: e.g., translations, abridgements, split editions, brief editions, English language adaptations, and custom versions for use by a particular school or instructor
> - (non-print media versions) and derivatives of the Program/Title (e.g. translations, abridgements, split editions, brief editions, English-language adaptations, and custom versions for use by a particular school or instructor) in all formats and methods of delivery (e.g., eBooks, online or download through browser or other application, or tangible versions, such as optical disks)
>
> It seems that this 300000 print run includes the print runs of all editions over 20 years.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> www.molon.de
>
> --- In STOCKPHOTO@..., Stockphoto Seller <bpslistmail@> wrote:
> >
> > Alfred,
> > ÃÂ
> > Does this publisher also include what they define as derivatives: abridgements, split editions, brief editions, English language adaptations, and custom versions? Do they specifiy a numbered edition of the text, or do they leave that open for the 20 years (in which time quite a number of new editions could be published on, say, a three-year revision cycle)?ÃÂ I can simply tell you what our approach to pricing the fee would be with the answer to those questions.
> > ÃÂ
> > Carl May
> >
> > --- On Sun, 8/14/11, alfred.molon <yahoo@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: alfred.molon <yahoo@>
> > Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Quote for extended use
> > To: STOCKPHOTO@...
> > Date: Sunday, August 14, 2011, 10:18 AM
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> >
> >
> > A publisher who licenced an image from me two years ago is asking for a quote for extended rights.
> >
> > This is for a schoolbook.
> >
> > Territory: Worldwide, All Languages, Print & Electronic: all-inclusive electronic rights (CD, PDFs, on-line, e-texts, e-book, website, database, downloadable, for classroom use projection on Smart/Whiteboard.) Term: 20 years, print run: 300,000, includes all electronic usages.
> > The print size is full page, inside.
> >
> > The requested rights include pretty much everything (the demand letter even mentions Braille for the blind.... <grin>).
> >
> > I don't where to start with this request, because my pricing tools are all geared for specific uses and not for such an extensive one. Played a bit with the Alamy price calculator entering 25 years, 500000 print run, worlwide (but not all languages) and not website use. Got $910 but this does not include everything.
> >
> > Any advice what I should charge?
> > --
> >
> > Alfred Molon
> > www.molon.de
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Re: Re: Quote for extended use

2011-08-18T00:48:12Z

Alfred,

I know exactly the educational publisher with whom you are dealing. So will several others who check in here on Stockphoto. Though the publisher has tried other blanket rights grabs in recent years, the particular wording on this one for an extension of rights and uses for an existing edition of a title has a few new twists.

First off, you will play hell trying to get them to run any kind of sales figures for your single image. Sales figures are closely held by educational publishers, and there is also the question of what constitutes a unit in a "print run"--especially units of digital items. I keep my eyes open and am sometimes able to learn such figures for specific titles, just as there is sometimes a roundabout leak of what competitors are charging for uses in titles in which we also have images. I was also fortunate to have spent a decade budgeting and developing book projects as the Biology Editor for several major college publishers in the US. Accordingly, I try to approach pricing empirically to the degree I am able--which isn't very much sometimes.

Being an extension of rights, your image in this case is already in the title, meaning the publisher has spent money to put it there (time and wages spent acquiring and deciding on the image, production work to put the image in the existing title[s], your prior permission fee, etc.) and would have to spend more to replace it. So they might threaten to replace your image as you negotiate, but they won't take that action lightly. Another thing to remember about the big corporate publishers: they are weak at record keeping over long periods of time, and we are talking about a long period of time in this request. All of this blanket request crap was started by the invasion of RF into educational photo markets. Publishing executives like the notion of paying a single modest fee and then never having to clear permission again for reuses. Even if there are permission limitations, photos that enter their corporate collection with some kind of extended usage have
a good chance of being tossed in with the RF years from now because that is becoming their standard way of working.

Not to bore you, but several years ago there was a news item to the effect that this publisher and one or two others of the big ones in the textbook arena had agreed to using PLUS procedures. Only they failed to pass this agreement on to the photo permissions department doing the actual permissions requests at the time. Maybe they have by now, but my mentions that I would be happy to work up a PLUS pricing package for the multiple uses rather than use our agency's own scheme have drawn no replies. Nonetheless, you could suggest a PLUS approach if you are comfortable with those protocols.

But here is how I am going about a request like this one at this time, based somewhat on what happens with college books and their associated publications over time:

First, I figure a fee for extended world rights in English requested for only the title already in existence--the title that already has your image in it, including printed textbook, e-book versions on various media and online, and all ancillaries associated with it. "Custom versions" are modifications of a title for use in a particular school or small set of schools, so I include them in pricing the ancillaries. A limit on units for the fee involved is included.

Second, based on nothing more than publishing experience with educational titles in the US marketplace, I'll guess that there will be no more than two derivative titles (these are the derivatives, abridgements, split editions and all that stuff) from the main existing title at any given time in the future. (For my areas of science publishing, there is frequently one derivative title from a successful text, but rarely two.) We give a modest discount for uses of images in derivative titles. So I come up with a fee for one edition of each of the two derivative titles, including e-books and ancillaries. And set a limit on the total units of each for the given fee.

Third, for translations into all languages (American textbooks are seldom translated into more than two languages because education in most other developed countries is conducted differently), I take the full fee for the base text (not just the extension requested at this time) plus the full fees for the two derivatives and add 100 percent for translation rights in all languages for one edition. In other words, the global translation rights double the total fees for all the titles from what the total fees would be in English alone.

Fourth, and the guessing gets even wilder here because we have no way of predicting the future of educational publications even a few years out and because competiton in college publishing has gone down with consolidation in the marketplace--meaning fewer new titles are being published for the basic course markets and existing titles will go through more editions--I'll guess at anywhere from two to four more editions of each of the three titles (main title and the two derivative titles) after their current or first editions depending on the market and add double to quadruple the reuse fee for each of the three titles and all their associated digital and print publications in all languages to the fee for one edition to cover all future editions. Sorry for the incredible run-on sentence.

A lot of this is by way of trying to educate the client, the publisher, and make them aware of all they are asking for. I frequently say something like "I must assume you will exercise all the rights requested or you would not be asking for them." At each of the major steps above, I will give the cumulative fee so far in order that the client can see the gross monetary implications of what they are requesting. After all is laid out, what I have given is permission for use of an image worldwide in all languages in all editions of a specific title and its directly associated publications, both digital and print, up to a stated quantity of units. If the publisher wants, I'll even take the limit off the units of the package for an additional fee.

Guess what? Last winter, a publisher actually paid the total fee arrived at by the above process for 22 of our images in one of their major textbook titles. Wow! Almost worth an article in PDN. Now the process suggested is very fair; but anyone who has been in educational publishing for ten minutes should know some of the images will not be reused in the future, some of the ancillaries are not going to happen, some of the derivative titles are not going to happen, and some of the translations are certainly not going to happen. But the photo source is forced to charge a reasonable estimated fee for them because the rights are granted and could be exercised. It makes far more sense for an educational publisher to request reuse permissions for what is actually needed with each new edition; the cost for an in-house permissions editor or freelancer to go through the routine is far less than the cost of blanket rights that are not exercised. And
rights for a translation are often acquired by someone working for the foreign publisher doing the translation, costing the original publisher nothing for reuse permissions in other languages.

Yikes, anyone still reading at this point is a real trooper. There are lots of other schemes one might reasonably apply other than the one I am currently using, so please don't think the above is intended as if it was passed to me by a higher being while I was hallucinating in the desert. But in no case should any legitimate professional photo source throw up their arms and go RF in answer to a request like this.

Carl May

--- On Tue, 8/16/11, alfred.molon <yahoo@...> wrote:

From: alfred.molon <yahoo@...>
Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: Quote for extended use
To: STOCKPHOTO@...
Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2011, 4:21 AM

Thanks for the reply Carl. I just checked:

- all editions
- (print versions) derivatives: e.g., translations, abridgements, split editions, brief editions, English language adaptations, and custom versions for use by a particular school or instructor
- (non-print media versions) and derivatives of the Program/Title (e.g. translations, abridgements, split editions, brief editions, English-language adaptations, and custom versions for use by a particular school or instructor) in all formats and methods of delivery (e.g., eBooks, online or download through browser or other application, or tangible versions, such as optical disks)

It seems that this 300000 print run includes the print runs of all editions over 20 years.
--

Alfred Molon
www.molon.de

--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., Stockphoto Seller <bpslistmail@...> wrote:

>
> Alfred,
> Â
> Does this publisher also include what they define as derivatives: abridgements, split editions, brief editions, English language adaptations, and custom versions? Do they specifiy a numbered edition of the text, or do they leave that open for the 20 years (in which time quite a number of new editions could be published on, say, a three-year revision cycle)?Â I can simply tell you what our approach to pricing the fee would be with the answer to those questions.
> Â
> Carl May
>
> --- On Sun, 8/14/11, alfred.molon <yahoo@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: alfred.molon <yahoo@...>
> Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Quote for extended use
> To: STOCKPHOTO@...
> Date: Sunday, August 14, 2011, 10:18 AM
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> A publisher who licenced an image from me two years ago is asking for a quote for extended rights.
>
> This is for a schoolbook.
>
> Territory: Worldwide, All Languages, Print & Electronic: all-inclusive electronic rights (CD, PDFs, on-line, e-texts, e-book, website, database, downloadable, for classroom use projection on Smart/Whiteboard.) Term: 20 years, print run: 300,000, includes all electronic usages.
> The print size is full page, inside.
>
> The requested rights include pretty much everything (the demand letter even mentions Braille for the blind.... <grin>).
>
> I don't where to start with this request, because my pricing tools are all geared for specific uses and not for such an extensive one. Played a bit with the Alamy price calculator entering 25 years, 500000 print run, worlwide (but not all languages) and not website use. Got $910 but this does not include everything.
>
> Any advice what I should charge?
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> www.molon.de
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Quote for extended use -no more textbooks

2011-08-17T11:33:34Z

Dear Bob,

I doubt that I was on this list back then but I totally agree with your thinking. It was the same thinking that led me to give up teaching and start writing educational resources for the internet at the start of 2000 and then by 2003 to setting up my first Geography Photos site.

The reasons that that first bubble didn't have the effect that we both expected are many and complex. Not least of the problems in UK was that the BBC started producing resources across the entire curriculum that were free to users. This led to an almighty tussle with commercial producers who could see a way of competing and the eventual pulling of that BBC content. So instead of half a decade of development we ended up in a dead end.

But with hindsight we were both too ahead of the times in our thinking. Ten years later schools are different places - the children, the teachers, the technology.

Whether this next wave of educational use of the internet will truly take-off remains to be seen but as far as I am concerned it is a market worth being in and I can say with certainty that it is attracting large investment from big business.

The very significant difference now is that schools are more able to 'do it themselves' as long as they have the resources. They are less inclined to rely on packages bought in from publishers. Children now are expected to interact with and use resources - to select from what is available, to justify and evaluate their choices. Resources are held on 'learning platforms' rich with media files of different sorts accessible to all in the institution.

Time will tell...

Regards,

Ian Murray

--- In STOCKPHOTO@..., Bob Croxford <bobcroxford@...> wrote:

>
> On 16 Aug 2011, at 22:22, ian wrote:
>
> > If this is an accurate prediction then we would all be better cutting out the middle man and marketing direct to schools and education ministries.
>
> Dear Ian
>
> You might find, deep in the Stockphoto archives, a suggestion of mine to this effect years ago. I also included school kids. The time of my posting was in the wake of the 1st dot.com bubble bursting. I read that the most profitable online business in the world was Tesco.net. This was followed by a school homework site in Spain which provided kids with free resources but made a fortune from advertising.
>
> Bob Croxford
>
> www.atmosphere.co.uk
>

Re: Re: Quote for extended use -no more textbooks

2011-08-17T11:05:22Z

> You might find, deep in the Stockphoto archives, a suggestion of mine to this
> effect years ago. I also included school kids. The time of my posting was in the
> wake of the 1st dot.com bubble bursting. I read that the most profitable online
> business in the world was Tesco.net. This was followed by a school homework site
> in Spain which provided kids with free resources but made a fortune from
> advertising.

Bob:

Ian might not remember, but I certainly do. It was a great post and was among a few at the
time that really saved my neck and kept me fighting until this very day.

We should always be looking at issues like these.

Brian Yarvin
Author, Educator, Photographer
Check out my new blog, "No Spring Chicken" at:
http://www.brianyarvin.com/nospringchicken/

Re: Quote for extended use

2011-08-17T06:50:48Z

Hi Alfred,

I licensed some images last year to Houghton-Mifflin-Harcourt that ranged in price from $450 1/4 pg. to $800 full page.

The terms were not as extensive as yours so I think the above figures
would be a good starting point.

Alex Demyan
louisianaphotos.com