It's probably happened to you: you're shooting away and someone, usually the venue owner, approaches you. You get that sinking feeling hearing those dreaded five words: "Can I get a copy?"
Most people have little understanding of the photography profession, how image rights work, or even basic copyright law. So as jarring as it can be for a stranger to ask for free copies of your work or even to re-post it without permission, it's important to remember that they might not mean any harm. That little reminder can help you keep your cool in such stressful situations.
Ignorance of image rights is the main reason why it's important to have ironclad contracts that clearly state not only who retains the copyright but also who can and cannot transfer or re-sell images. Ideally that person is you.
In the past I've been relieved at how understanding most people are when politely told that no, I can’t simply give them a copy. The exception was one venue owner who assured me that his contract with my client granted him all media recorded on his property and that he'd "get the photos anyway.” (He was just trying to strong-arm me.)
But most people seem to have at least a slight awareness that their request could produce a "no." My success rate in easily disarming the situation is probably due to the fact that those asking for images do it not out of malice or manipulation but rather naivete.
How to Respond
It can be uncomfortable to respond to such a request. Instead of simply saying "no", offer an explanation or alternative. For example:
"Sorry, we are under contract for this shoot and the images are exclusively for the client."
If the request comes from someone associated closely with the client, offer joint licensing:
"Since your company is involved with this project, I'm happy to offer a split rate in which everyone pays for a share of the license."
I should note that some photographers are comfortable splitting the total evenly between parties, while others raise the total fee by 50%, 60%, 80%, etc. before splitting it. Some will simply have each party pay full price separately. This is your call.
Image by TheDigitalArtist, Pixabay
Or if you do non-commercial work, a polite response could be:
"Absolutely, we will have prints that can be purchased through my online gallery. Just hand me your business card and I'll email you the link when the photos are posted."
Some would argue that sharing images with potential clients or potential lead generators is a useful networking strategy. For instance, wedding photographers have shared experiences with me in which they handed over images from a wedding to a venue owner, making a "business courtship" move to garner leads from that owner.
This type of move sometimes works, but I'd argue that it’s technically harmful to the industry at large. WeddingFinder estimated there were upwards of 500,000 wedding venues in the United States nearly a decade ago (so, definitely more today). If photographers didn’t so often freely hand over sets of images, there would have been additional tens, likely hundreds of thousands of hires for photographers who could have also established great relationships with a venue owner and been paid to do so, to boot.
The truth is that we photographers have helped create a culture of venue owners who expect something of high value (business promotion material) for free. And this appropriation of our property is mostly our fault.
What's your go-to response to the question "Can I get a copy of those photos?" Or do your responses vary based on the situation? Share your strategy in the comments section below.
Lead image by Lukas via Pexels
I suspect it’s a matter of budget. Local websites/ magazines near me rely on Unsplash and Pexels as they just don’t have the budget to commission photography for every article.
people budget for what's important. An article like this and a site like this is supposedly for educating people about photography and showing how important/valuable photography is. Or I could be mistaken? I mean, they pay and allow a budget for their writers so F-Stoppers see's the value in that but they leave no budget for photography so they use Unsplahed / Pexels?
Most publishers know photographers' egos work against them and they often give their photos so they can see their name in print or on a published image. Before photographers become photographers, I think they should take business economics or other business classes, so they understand the very words business and professional, then rent out the dog on the weekends and buy some camera gear and they would have a much, much better chance at success or even survival as a photographer, than someone who just picked up a camera and stamped Professional Photographer on their forehead.
A video about this could be interesting. I'm a free market kind of guy. I've never been one to yell at photographers for "ruining the industry" In fact, I wrote the opposite in this post a while ago: https://fstoppers.com/wedding/why-bad-wedding-photographers-have-made-in...
We do a lot of teaching on Fstoppers about how to make more money with photography, but if you want to give your photos away, that's your decision. If we need a quick photo for a blog post, that is of almost no value to us. We would never hire someone to take a picture for a blog post and if Usplash didn't exist, MAYBE we would spend $5 for microstock, but even that is a stretch. Our writers are all photographers so they would end up taking a snapshot with their own camera. A lot of my images are taken with my cellphone at this point. It's just the nature of a blog, there isn't a budget for high-end photography for a post that might only get a thousand views.
So I certainly see why photographers don't like the idea of free photography, but much of the internet that we love is driven people who enjoy making free content for others. I just watched a video on how to fix my garage door by a guy who made the video simply to be helpful to others. You could argue that he should charge for that content, but I don't think he would make any money with it anyway. It brings him joy to share it. Same goes for detailed product reviews on websites like Amazon. People enjoy helping others without getting paid and many photographers enjoy seeing their pictures used, even if they don't get paid.
I do see both sides though. I think we should do a video discussion about this soon.
Lee Morris , thanks for the response. and yes, this would make an interesting topic for a post and/or video.
I wasn't talking per-say about commissioning an entire photo shoot for a post. But for example, you guys do make a budget for writers and they get X-amount per month or article or whatever. But the point is you do make a budget for it because obviously having new articles for you guys is important and you need it to keep the traffic going. What I'm bringing up is that F-stoppers is a site that's suppose to show the importance/value of photography? and if photos are truly important, you would actually include a small budget to license existing images per post. Like maybe even something like $25 per article or 50 WHEN you need to, b/c half the time they wouldn't be needed when you're featuring someone's work.
But you answered the question pretty much here:
"If we need a quick photo for a blog post, that is of almost no value to us."
You also state:
"A lot of my images are taken with my cellphone at this point. It's just the nature of a blog, there isn't a budget for high-end photography for a post that might only get a thousand views."
What I like to point out in what you said above is the last part about a post "that MIGHT only get a thousand views". It's one issue w/ digital/web/social media these days. If you have no traffic, it could be small. Or if it's a hit, it can be world wide and get millions of views. But essentially what you're saying is if it's "good enough", your okay with it. There's no way to anticipate this but the other question is, IF you knew an article would be a "hit" and drive a lot of traffic, would you actually invest any money for it or budget for any photography? Again, I'm NOT talking about a 10K commissioned shoot, just like $25-50 per image like a newspaper. Also, it doesn't matter what camera is used to make the photo.. you never charge by how difficult or what camera you used to make an image, you charged based on how the image is used.
The most troubling part of your response is you saying:
"but if you want to give your photos away, that's your decision."
While that may be true, that's extremely troubling to hear considering you guys produce educational videos for photographers. Most people who "give away their photos", are people who are usually NOT educated on copyright, intellectual property or image licensing. And you're taking advantage of that with no problem at all. Which to me just seems hypocritical when you know the value of photography. IF the photos truly hold NO value.. then simply just don't use any. That would be better than promoting those sites IMO.
I talk about contracts from time to time b/c I get questions about them. And A LOT photographers get taken advantage of because they don't know better. For example, a few years ago I knew a photographer who got a 2 page spread in a magazine that I knew. She got the 2 page spread when she was still in college. I asked if she billed the magazine for the space usage and she said she had no idea what that was, didn't know how to ask or even bring up payment. I told her for a 2 page spread she should have gotten $1,000. She didn't get paid b/c she didn't know better. But business people, are business people and they are not there to inform you or help you out. In other words, those people take your same approach:
"if you want to give your photos away, that's your decision."
As a photographer, we all have clients who try to exploit us, get as much as they can for as little as possible, throw WFH contracts last minute, and if YOU as a photographer don't fight for yourself.. NO ONE else will.
And sadly Lee, you saying "if you want to give your photos away, that's your decision" clearly shows where you and F-Stoppers stand. Which is totally fine and as you said, the market drives everything. But that still doesn't keep you from looking like a hypocrite. Where does that stop?? I mean, look at some magazines. If traffic ramps up to you guys and/or submissions, will you take the same approach as these vapor ware "magazines", that charge photographers to "submit" an editorial? Will photographers and writes have to pay you to be featured here if you get enough traffic or submissions? The default response with no thought is always:
"well if that's what the market drives" or "if people want to pay to be featured, that's their decision."
Maybe I'm the only one with this POV, but it still blows my mind how you guys make a budget for writers, and nothing for photography like even $25 per article to avoid using Unsplashed and Pexels. You're 1 step away from Peta Pixels who value nothing simply b/c they have a huge following. They don't even bother paying for someone to write many times. They simply just copy and paste blog post directly on their site and credit the person as a writer! When I became aware they did this w/ 2 of my post I stopped letting them use my content UNLESS someone else wrote a summary of the article. If I'm going to be listed as an "author", I better get paid. But I guess for my first 2 times since I wasn't fully aware of what they did, they just had your same mentally/approach. And YES, the market dictates everything and many people still are willing to let Peta Pixels copy/paste their original blog post for exposure. Something you guys could do too to save money as A LOT of people are willing to give away their writing for free for exposure.
Many editors/clients actually do what you're doing. Meaning, when they go to hire someone for the first time and it's a big publication/client, they offer you a TERRIBLE contract at first. MANY photographers sadly sign it b/c they don't know better. But if you fight it, you can usually get a better agreement.
All I'm saying is that I thought you guys would be more considerate and compassionate towards photographers who didn't know better. But as I mentioned above, if YOU as a photographer don't fight for yourself.. NO ONE else will. Yes, we're all grown ups here... but you saying the following while making money from educating photographers and the industry:
"if you want to give your photos away, that's your decision."
is like a drug dealer saying:
"well, if a pregnant woman wants to buy crack from me, that's her decision"
I know that's an extreme example, but your essentially encouraging, promoting and enabling bad behavior from people who don't know better. I'm not trolling you guys at all or hating on you.. I'm just telling you what I think and my POV which may be in the minority. If you want to hit me up and talk about this, or make a video or even meet up at WPPI, I'm 100% for it as I think it's a great discussion.
Thank you for a thoughtful response. To be clear, I don't believe photography in itself is valuable. I believe some photography is extremely high end and custom and valuable and I believe most photography is worthless. I believe that any photographer who is willing to put in the work is able to learn, and in turn create something of value, but I don't believe that anyone with a camera creates valuable art.
About Fstoppers paying $25-50/post for images: That certainly doesn't sound unreasonable but the average post doesn't produce $25-$50 in revenue. Writers get paid based on views and sometimes even the writers get paid less than $25 if a post is a flop. If we had to pay $25/image used in a blog post, we would immediately pass a rule that all photos must be taken by the writer, but at that point you could argue that we are doing the exact same thing; We aren't paying the photographer from usplash for the photo and we aren't paying the writer of the article for the same photo. The argument would still be that Fstoppers, a photography website, is unwilling to pay for photography.
I do see your point, and maybe there is some sort of middle ground that we could reach that isn't quite so hypocritical, but I think you might be overestimating the amount of traffic and ad revenue each article gets.
Lee Morris , to be clear... I have a lot of respect and give you guys props for how you've been able to build this site and how big it's gotten. Also I thought the workshops you guys were able to put together were an awesome achievement along w/ the product you guys made.
I also feel for you guys b/c you can't get big without people trolling you left and right. I can certainly relate as I get trolled too when people ask me for recommendations or I share what gear I use.. I'm instantly told by someone I'm just pushing a product. If I find something that works for me, I'm not going to test out every option.
I hope that I'm not coming across as someone trolling or completely random. This is my actual account and work. I've been featured here a few times already this year and every time I'm grateful.
To go back to original topic... if you want honest feedback from people you respect, why don't you ask every photographer you've done a tutorial with what they think of Unsplashed and Pexels? Ask them if they would ever submit images there and what they think of F-Stoppers promoting/using that type of service. See what they tell you and what they would suggest. They've done business with you, and know the photo business well and I'm actually curious to hear what they would say.
As to some of your points:
"That certainly doesn't sound unreasonable but the average post doesn't produce $25-$50 in revenue... I think you might be overestimating the amount of traffic and ad revenue each article gets"
My only question to those statements is if you remain constant and stand by those words along with everyone else at F-Stoppers? In other words, IF I or any photography company came to you and wanted to run ads on the F-Stoppers site for a week or a month, would that be how you sell your ad space? If I buy ad space how much traffic would it get? How much would it cost? My guess is you wouldn't lead with:
"the average post doesn't produce $25-$50 in revenue... I think you might be overestimating the amount of traffic and ad revenue each article gets"
Yes, each article may get different traffic but they all add up to an average per week or month on the site and why it's important to constantly have new articles. Which I'm guessing that's the traffic metric you use when selling ad space?
I certainly understand and know those are numbers you don't have to disclose, and from a business POV, yes you do what you can to maximize profits and cut expenses where you can. But at what point do your action to maximize profits and make a few more dollars exceed the principals your teaching/selling?
At the end of the day, you gotta do what you gotta do to pay the bills and keep the business afloat. My main question was why a site like this that's been around for a while and promotes photography EDU and makes great educational video for photographers (I've actually bought one and it was awesome) would use and promote services like Pexels and UnSplashed. In my eyes it just doesn't align morally or with the educational videos you make.
You've certainly taken the time to let me know where you're coming from. Appreciate you taking the time to response.
all the best,
-Alexis
Alexis, I think another interesting study would be to reach out to photographers who put out royalty free content and see why they do it. Perhaps you'd get interesting responses, not just "I don't know any better." which sounds like the response you'd expect.
Interesting would certainly be right. If you understand copyright, commercial use, and IP the risk of letting unknown companies use images you take without proper model releases and any compensation makes it hard for me to see any upside.
zack arias did an interview w/ the CEO of Unsplashed and if I remember right, the pay off was getting your name out there and getting hired... but it certainly is risking a lot.
The use of unsplash & pexel by Fstoppers is something I have never understood from Day 1 sincerely... Even using a paid stock service such as istock or shutterstock would deem more respectful of what the blog stands for. And that would not be the fault imho of the author of the post, but a global responsability from the leadership part.
Very well said. As I mentioned above, it would be great to get a video or article from Lee Morris and/or Patrick Hall about this.
Thanks for your comment, Olivier.
Welcome scott, your article is really interesting, wether any reader agrees or not is unimportant imho, it makes people think, and thinking makes us grow 😊
Alexis, I get where you're coming from. However, I did not state in this article that royalty free media was a bad thing. Royalty free selections are extremely limited and therefore there's still plenty of demand for paid stock images and work-for-hire images that keep our industry going.
That should answer: "Why should business or someone bother paying you if they can go to those site YOU use for free?"
Royalty free stock exists because the photographer elected to share their work. Nobody asked those artists for a handout.
So if artists create media and decide that they'd like to let others use it, is anyone being taken advantage of? I've never emailed anyone asking for free use of their images for a blog post and I never will. FStoppers won't do this either.
I use my own images in articles as often as I can, but I don't shoot much stock or editorial so my selections are limited. At the moment, either my images or royalty free photos are the only two options.
Whether royalty free media (stock, music, illustration, etc) hurts industries is another discussion which I'm now interested in writing about.
Scott Mason , thanks for the reply. You can see my reply to Lee above. Maybe making a poll here and asking the F-stoppers audience if they have an issues w/ Unsplahed and Pexels being used bothers them will help to gauge to see if people are interested in the topic?
Outside of recreational shooting at a few local car shows, I don't shoot event. I'll still get an occasional request to email the images and I'll respond: "I'm sorry but my camera doesn't have an email function.".
Leaves them completely dumbfounded every single time.
Dumbfounded sell a lot of photos, does it? I guess that's cute and all, but...
Didn't see where I stated that I sold them, Jon.
Sorry Fred! I did not mean to be rude. sarcastic a weeee, but it ended up being rude, not my intention. I missed the levity and should have read it twice, before snarking. I think at some point in our photographic history, we all run into people who think we should pass out our photos like candy thrown to children from a parade float. Best of luck in all you do!
Jon, thank you. Hope all goes well for you, also.
I've heard it many times. Just yesterday, as a matter of fact.
I get an email -- "Can we buy that beautiful image?"
On the surface, that would appear to be great, as they are already offering to actually pay for the image. They went on to say that were were as many as 11 more images they might be interested in. I asked what their budget was. Their answer:
"I’m not sure what to say regarding budget."
So I made them two offers that were both a very, very small percentage of what fotoQuote said I should charge for their intended usage. The first was for the original image, and was less than half the fotoQuote price. The other 11 images were not even close to that -- all 11 for just slightly more than ONE image at fotoQuote prices.
My reason for low-balling it was that I already know that even though fotoQuote is supposed to take location into account, their prices won't fly around here.
I have not heard back from these folks, which, in my experience, means they are not nearly as interested in the images as they lead me to believe.
This happens all the time. As a matter of fact, I have never made a sale that way. High price, low price, exactly what fotoQuote says to charge, 1/10 of that, it matters not. My experience is that people do not want to pay for photos.
Having said all that, I did run into something interesting a while back that kind of explains it -- I got beat out of a job by a competitor. By chance, a few days later, I had a chance to talk to him. During the course of the conversation, I let it slip as to what I had asked for as a fee. Keeping the previous story in mind, here's his response -- "Wow. You were charging more for one photo than I charged for the whole job!"
Yes, he bid an entire job for less than half what fotoQuote said one photo is worth.
And therein lies the problem.
From what I can tell using the program, fotoQuote seems to be based off NYC/LA advertising photography prices. So unless you're in those markets or you're working with high end advertising firms or brands from major cities, a lot of the time you won't be paid even half of the "standards" set in their software. Or, like in your experience, you'll price yourself out and become ghosted. It's a nice reference but not ideal for everyday shooters.
I love the fact that fotoQuote exists, but I take the quote pricing with a grain of salt and try to apply the location, business market and region that I'm dealing with. Pricing is enough to begin with, but you have to factor a lot of variables to find the price that's fair to both you and your client.
Re-selling/licensing older photos is hard, but I hope your sentiment of people never wanting to pay doesn't mean that you are generally giving up on paid work. My single (commercial) image price is near what some of my local competitors are charging for a whole shoot, but my clients know that the superior quality and customer service they get is more than worth it.
More often than not I've had to simply tell folks (as agreed in my contract) that they would have to get a copy of the pics from the client themselves (Social Media Marketing Strategy). Usually people haven't had an issue with that.
Does this entail transferring copyright to your client, Aaron?
My business policy is strict: I cannot release, share, or license my assignment, stock, or personal images until they’ve been registered with the US Copyright Office!
If I’m on-location and someone hands me their business card in anticipation of receiving complimentary images, I’ll take their card and offer them my business card, asking them politely to contact me instead, and I’ll also very briefly explain my copyright registration policy and the infringements I’ve had to deal with when sharing images with folks I don’t know.
Now the onus is on them to reach out to me, and if I don’t hear from them, that’s perfectly fine.
As another option, I’ll retain the person’s business card, as it might be a strong lead for future assignments. I can always contact them, and after a phone or email chat, I may decide it’s advantageous to send them low-res watermarked images for a limited, private display license to help develop them as a new client.