ethics, selling same image in galleries and for stock ..?

[jonnydonut]

I'm new to this area, so looking for some advice.

OK, so some of my stuff is in a gallery show right now, kind of an amateur gallery. Everyone is like "jonny, why is it not for sale, put prices on that stuff", and I even had someone tell me directly that they wanted to buy two prints. Now, they'd be low prices, it's just the way this place works. But I still want to sell.

At the same time, I'm also registering for stock sites with the recommendation or demands rather of a photo colleague. I haven't submitted anything yet. So with that background info, or without, here's the question:

Is it ethical to sell images for stock online, and sell a print of the same image in a gallery?

to me, that just seems questionable, but I'm not in the stock or art world (yet), I've been an assignment/ project/ event photographer for the most part.

[Steelsun]

How would you feel if you bought a gallery print for $XXX then saw the same print on a stock site being sold for $1.99?

[jonnydonut]

it would be $XX, and yeah, wouldn't be too happy, but then again stock is not large prints on professional paper. It's a medium resolution digital copy. That's why I'm asking tho. It's a weird line there for me, and these people want my images. I'd feel bad saying, "no, I'd rather sell it for a dollar to a stranger".

[Steelsun]

Have 2 sets of images: The ones you sell as Gallery Prints, and the one as stock.

Anything I sell as a gallery print, or by commission to a client, I will not sell as stock - it's just not fair to the original buyers. It will dilute the value of the gallery versions.

[CaptainTom]

It is common practice to sell images over varied outlets. If you sell a print, you have sold that piece of photo paper with an image on it. The image still remains yours.
If you sell images via stock agencies, they are buying very limited rights to the image unless the deal is for complete and exclusive usage, which you would charge a small fortune for because you could no longer sell the image elsewhere.

There is no ethical conflict. (I am not in favor of cheap stock agencies, so if your photos go for a dollar, that's what they are worth ).

by commission to a client

= different scenario.

[jeffkohn]

If you're talking rights-managed stock for real money, I don't see a conflict. The image may be the same but they're two different products. One is a physical, tangible print and the other is just right of usage for commercial/advertising purposes. The gallery print is likely to be much larger and of higher reproduction value.

Selling the same image as a gallery print and as penny stock would be pretty tacky though. It would certainly devalue your gallery prints, and given that there's little or no money to be made in micro-stock unless you have a specialized niche, I'm not sure why you'd want to do that. If you lose even one print sale, you'd likely have to sell the image hundreds of times at micro-stock rates to make that up.

[Aric C. Hoek]

Do everything you can to sell as many of your images in as many ways as you can for the rest of your life. be proud of how you do it.

If you feel uncomfortable about something, you will find that a way through or around the problem will present itself to you.

Jump on an opportunity to sell an image when someone asks to buy one. If there is no price on the image, quote them one verbally right then and there.

[klynam]

Question seems easy to me....

Print it yourself if possible, on premium photo paper or custom art paper
Sign/number it
Sell your "signed limited edition original artist print"

Anything they ever see online can never be that.

Exclusivity and win/win for everyone...

[Steelsun]

But the thing is: You buy a gallery print for a "bargain" of $100.
Then see the same image used to advertise a Lawn Mowing service on a brochure.

Would you feel cheated? I would.

A gallery print is "art" and conveys quality and limited edition.
Stock is common.

I don't want something that's sold at stock prices that every joe schlmoo can buy to put on his website, garage sale leaflet, or even corporate report to be hanging on my wall as art. And I would not sell my images as such.

Now if maybe you had a leaflet/description with the gallery print saying something like "an image from out stock library" that qualifies it as not being the unique wall art, then maybe it would be acceptable.

[Teddington]

Maybe I'm just not experienced enough to know better but I'd think the audience would choose different types of photos depending on the use. For that reason, I side with deciding whether a photo is a stock photo or a fine art photo and not overlap. Seems to me if a photo is only good enough to throw out on a stock photo site, it's probably not fine art quality anyway.

[CaptainTom]

If you spend a small fortune on an Ansel Adams print, and then see the same print in a book about Ansel Adams do you somehow feel cheated, or do you appreciate the print you bought even more ??

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by klynam

Question seems easy to me....

Print it yourself if possible, on premium photo paper or custom art paper
Sign/number it
Sell your "signed limited edition original artist print"

Anything they ever see online can never be that.

Exclusivity and win/win for everyone...

Be careful about using the term "limited edition" as there are legal requirements you must meet to use that designation, and they vary from state to state. There's more to it than just signing and numbering the print.

[adirty1]

I see nothing wrong with it. If you want to do it than do it. I sell images at galleries and at small fairs. the prints I sell at fairs are priced way below that of the gallery print. Because I do not have to pay the fair 50 percent of the sale price and usually the print at the fair is not framed and matted. Most galleries will not let me sell just a print. I have to have the image framed and matted. To me that person bought the rights to display that print for life. The company that buys the image for one run paid for those rights. I see no issues.