Would you have given it away?

[d2creative]

I'm ok with my decision but thought I'd ask just out of curiosity and to make sure I wasn't completely out of line. If i was, leason learned for next time.

Basically, i took some pics of a "green" home for an architect several months back. The owner of the home is a lawyer and just recently spoke during a Texas Lawyer meeting on green homes, the changing climate, etc. The transcript from his talk is being published in the Texas Lawyer weekly mag and they wanted to use a couple of my pics to go along with it. If it was a contractor looking to use my pics for advertising or something I would have worked out a one-time usage fee, but in this case I didn't think it was necessary and just asked for a photo credit... partly due to the fact that I'm all for anything green and don't mind helping out when i can. I doubt anything will come from it but I'll get some exposure and they're sending me a copy when it comes out in June.

So what would you have done? I don't make my living with my photography, yet at the same time I try to keep in line with the ethics and business practices of professional photographers whenever possible. So if I was completely in the wrong here I'd like to know.

Thanks!

[zepp]

Originally Posted by d2creative

but in this case I didn't think it was necessary and just asked for a photo credit... partly due to the fact that I'm all for anything green and don't mind helping out when i can.

What any of us would have done have no bearing since you have justified your own decision with your statement above.

[LDB]

I'd have needed about a half dozen copies for dad, kids etc. but otherwise I see no problem with it since you are satisfied with it.

[andyz]

I'm guessing the lawyer isn't getting paid for his contribution and that the magazine has a very limited budget. At least that is the way it is for some of my banking trade magazines. If asked to pay a respectable fee, they probably couldn't have done it anyway.

And based on your rationale, I'd have done the same.

[Craig]

Considering that lawyers charge $25 for sending a fax, and architects sure ain't cheap. I would have charged for my work. Green house or not, it takes green to pay the bills. Magazines are businesses. They make money, even if they are free publications, they charge for ads. I get asked by these kinds of mags to give them images. They come across as very naive saying they "don't normally pay for images." I'm betting the lawyers mag is not a free handout.

If you really liked doing gardening and landscaping, would you do the landscaping at an office building for free in your spare time to get some exposure?

[CaptainTom]

I would have asked them what their budget for the photos was. If they said "no budget" or "no money" then I would have to make a decision whether to offer them for free.

I do a bit of work for Not for profit organaizations, and just because they are not for profit doesnt' mean they have no money. Just means they have to spend it all before the end of the year. I also do some very discounted work for selected charities, etc. but we start out agreeing on the amount they will be charged. I then do the work, and usually they get more than we had agreed to. But to give it for free is not a good business practice.

[d2creative]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

I would have asked them what their budget for the photos was. If they said "no budget" or "no money" then I would have to make a decision whether to offer them for free.

I'll keep that in mind for next time. That's a good way to word it and it still leaves you open to decide either way. Thanks.

[d2creative]

Originally Posted by Craig

If you really liked doing gardening and landscaping, would you do the landscaping at an office building for free in your spare time to get some exposure?

No, but this didn't take any of my time and there were certain circumstances at play that made it so I didn't mind. But fyi, I had one of the contractors from that same house approach me not long ago. He wanted to use one of the pics for some marketing materials. I charged him a reasonable fee for it because he was going to be using my pic as a way to sell himself and generate revenue. That wasn't the case here. So i just looked at this as good PR and less paperwork to deal with.
But since I wasn't sure if that was really the best way to go about it I figured I'd ask.
All good points so far.

[zepp]

One thing you should do even if you let them use the image without a fee is to handle the transaction as if there is a fee involved. Prepare an invoice/license specific to the terms and conditions of the usage allowed and discount out what you are generously giving them. This might prevent them from expecting future images from you without the license fee commonly associated with them and also protect you should they use or manipulate the image in an unauthorized manner.

An example of conditions to spell out include for them to indemnify and defend should an image you supply be one a model or property released had not been secured and the image was used by them beyond editorial purposes and the subject in the image sued. Perhaps this seems a bit extreme, but one never knows.

Treating the first deal as a business transaction will only make future business dealings with them easier should they occur.

[LDB]

Another reason for the invoicing would be to possibly write it off your taxes as a contribution. That might not be possible with this group but maybe would with other groups.

[Howard Barlow]

Originally Posted by LDB

Another reason for the invoicing would be to possibly write it off your taxes as a contribution. That might not be possible with this group but maybe would with other groups.

Actual cost of goods is the only thing you can deduct. Time, talent, profit, etc, are never deductible.

[ggeen]

Call it philanthropy. I'm with you since the request was not to further promote the lawyer's practice and it is promoting something that I believe in -- green home building. For the builder, yes, charge for the use of the image as he is trying to profit from the photos use.

[Casper]

Good point Frank on treating it as business.

Steve

[Roadrnr]

Originally Posted by zepp

One thing you should do even if you let them use the image without a fee is to handle the transaction as if there is a fee involved. Prepare an invoice/license specific to the terms and conditions of the usage allowed and discount out what you are generously giving them. This might prevent them from expecting future images from you without the license fee commonly associated with them and also protect you should they use or manipulate the image in an unauthorized manner.

An example of conditions to spell out include for them to indemnify and defend should an image you supply be one a model or property released had not been secured and the image was used by them beyond editorial purposes and the subject in the image sued. Perhaps this seems a bit extreme, but one never knows.

Treating the first deal as a business transaction will only make future business dealings with them easier should they occur.

That is an great point Frank.

Not only will it prevent them from expecting future images for free, it puts some VALUE to the photographer and the photographer's product. That gains respect for the photog too.