Action Sports Cartel

I recently had someone contact me wanting to use one of my mountain bike race images for a blog post on their site. I know standard issue here is to charge a web usage fee, but the blog is small and I don't believe the owner would pay anyways (although I suppose I should never assume anything). How do you determine whether or not you should offer up your image for use as a "pro bono" sort of thing, and when to ask for reimbursement? Of course a plug and link to my photos will be included in the blog post, but I've never really made anything from "exposure" or just getting photo credit. What's the right move here?

-A

'Hi ____
Thanks for your interest in using my photography, I'm very happy you'd like to use my imagery.
As a company policy I cannot trade usage rights for credit alone, but I also understand you are a small (if they are) blog, I hope we can find a price that works for both of us."

Pointing it out as a company policy, or even just your universal policy will depersonalize the request for money. You aren't just trying to sucker them into paying while others get free stuff, its simply what you do.
If asking for payment for work burns a bride, i'm not sure you'd really want to be using that bridge anyways.

photo cred should be standard in any editorial stuff, something that happens already its not some form of reimbursement.

if they want the picture, there is some value to the person asking for it. If its a small blog then just find a suitable price for their estimated traffic

pro bono should only be considered if its for a 'cause' and for an organization where everyone is volunteer. (there are more hairs that can be split and described, but thats a rough guide I go by)

Hey Reuben,

Thanks for the reply. I understand the whole photo credit thing and how that's standard. What's your normal response to a request for your image when the other party says they'll give you photo credit and there is no mention of payment? I just don't want to come off sounding too harsh and I don't want to burn any bridges as it is a good opportunity for me to make some contacts. I mean, you know how it is with the industry, everybody wants something for free and unfortunately many photographers give their work away.

reuben krabbe wrote:
'Hi ____
Thanks for your interest in using my photography, I'm very happy you'd like to use my imagery.
As a company policy I cannot trade usage rights for credit alone, but I also understand you are a small (if they are) blog, I hope we can find a price that works for both of us."

Pointing it out as a company policy, or even just your universal policy will depersonalize the request for money. You aren't just trying to sucker them into paying while others get free stuff, its simply what you do.
If asking for payment for work burns a bride, i'm not sure you'd really want to be using that bridge anyways.

Hey Reuben,

Thanks for that. Good point about stating it as a company policy. I'll try it and see how it goes.

Thanks,

-A

Well, that didn't work. Sent out a nice, professional email explaining my policy as you pointed out Reuben, and the blog owner already made the post with another photographers image and plug to his site. Didn't even get a response to my email (although it was sent out earlier today).That's what boils my blood about this industry...photographers give their work away for free and ruin it for the rest of us trying to run a business and make a living shooting photos. Sorry, but I'm not a hobbyist and I don't shoot just for fun. Like you said Rueben, if the image warranted some interest, then there is value to it and it's worth paying for. Every time this happens I just think about that Harlan Ellison video, "Pay the Writer."

Yup.
There is no room in the industry for a 'good' photographer. You need to be dropping bombs every time you pick up a camera, or a very savvy businessman, to make it anywhere financially.
Don't let it get to your head, stick to your guns. Also, if you know the photographer whose shot got run for free its worth having a non-confrontational conversation with them about the value of their work.

Hey Reuben,

Thanks for the reply. I believe the other photographer just shoots for fun, but that's no excuse for giving your work away. I don't know the other photographer personally, but my buddy talked to him at the race, so I'll have to ask him what's up.

On another note, have you had to deal with friends or people you've photographed while just out shooting that ask for the photographs? In that situation, would you give them a low-res watermarked image for the web if they wanted one? Or would you charge them like anybody else? The reason I ask is because I was out shooting at a local bike park testing some flash settings and got a few decent images of the riders there. They asked me if the images would be posted and available and I said yes, but didn't mention that they would only be available for sale though my smugmug site. Long story short, nobody bought anything (low-res digi files were available for purchase and my prices for those kind of images are not steep at all) and one rider emailed me asking for the photo, but I just directed him to the smugmug gallery. Never heard back from him. I'm wondering if in that situation, I should just provide them with a watermarked low-res digi file, say 600px max one side, so at least when they show their friends, family, etc. my name is out there. What's your opinion on this?

-A

For me it depends on the relationship I have with the rider.

Does the rider just want the one shot, then not really work collaborate on effective images in the future? or do they work with me to get great images? put out a lot of effort etc?

For general personal work I'll go shoot, edit shots and make a private gallery on my website (lightroom's web module) upload it, give them a link.
Prior giving them the link (when we're shooting/ make sure its in person so you know they are paying attention) I discuss how it works; I edit, show them private gallery.
Then I sit on images for a while deciding what I'll hold private. (I hold private images that are submitted to magazines, the redundant frames of images sent to magazines, or images which represent a location/idea that I'm planning to hold till I get it dialed)
The rest of the shots don't really have terribly much value; They won't get published, or purchased. And the rider has put out work for me; they hike stuff countless times if things need to be tweaked to get a dialed shot. So keeping them happy makes sense (if you were shooting a fashion model you pay them and treat them well so you can keep working with them, its the same for anything behind a lens. Help those who help you)

But, this all depends on the rider being a person that I want to work with again. Are they being ass hats? Do they care about working together, or do they just want to get a frame for their profile shot and don't care about trying to shoot again in the future.
Or did a unknown rider hit a feature on the trail while I'm setting up lights, I shoot a frame to check lighting. They ask if they can see the pic? I'll give em a card and they can buy the shot if they so wish.

Seems like the argument for giving away free photographs is still alive. IMO, its an argument fit for back when film was the medium of choice, print was the medium of choice for publication, and when "professional photographers" were actually professionals. the industry has changed a lot since the digital revolution, and now at least, I see every other person in the city walking around with a entry-lvl nikon/canon DSLR, all loading their photos to flicker or facebook, not giving a F*** where their photos end up. I bet only a fraction even have a clue about copyright and creative commons. its a lost battle against the amateur who doesn't make or want to make a living out of photography, who feels, deep down, that its alright to give away photographs. we also have the advanced amateurs, just getting into the game - buying up 5d's, speedlights and a few lenses, saturating the market with mostly free or dirt cheap labor via craigslist.

I think now, with a super saturated market, Its really a matter of getting that exclusive access, selling to the right clients, and putting in a lot of social engineering, including pro-bono work, to get those referrals flowing.

Trying to sell photographs to blogs is a mistake. no blogger in their right mind will pay for a photograph. blogging doesn't and shouldn't follow a traditional editorial process. at its heart, blogging is a frugal endeavor. rather then nit-picking broke bloggers about paying for individual photographs, a fair trade these days would be not only credit, but a link and maybe a good word for w/e web properties you own, or from where the image was sourced. Blogs that link to your work are providing you with free viral advertising. If a really popular blog links to my work, all the better. I get a huge spike in traffic and some new regular visitors. Of course, keep the bangers and marketable photos offline - exclusivity = $$$ (with the right clients) - but the rest can be used to drive traffic and attention to yourself and/or your site.

I leave this open to discussion