How to purchase 3rd party photography

[steveclv]

So I am in the process of setting up a physical Photography Gallery on our small island of Malta. I have been a photographer for many years and have quite a collection of good images to start with and I will be taking more of the islands and then selling prints to the public.

However, I would like to supplement my library by finding great images from other photographers and then paying them a royalty every time one sells. However I would like to acquire the RAW image files and then manipulate them myself to create images of the style that I like and which matches my photography.

Does anyone know how I would go about this? I have looked at Stock Libraries but they just sell jpgs for a one off fee and that isn't what I'm looking for.

I realize that there is the trust issue and also that some photographers might not want their photos manipulated but is there an opportunity here?

I am expecting the prints (framed) to sell between $50 and $300 each depending upon size and after the production costs that leaves between $15 and $150 profit so I would expect to pay $5 - $25 per image used as a royalty each time a print sold - does that make sense? Of course some images may never actually sell.

[PeterAit]

I would never let anyone process my raw files. The "development" of the image is as important as taking it in terms of expression, and for you to put your style on an image that carries my name makes no sense to me. What might work is to invite selected photographers to send you unmounted prints which you will then frame and sell.

[steveclv]

Thanks Peter

That was my concern - that the photographer would become very parochial regarding their 'art'. I wonder if I would have more luck approaching commercial photographers who shoot to make money rather than shoot for the artistic.
I might also have more luck if I can approach photographers who have not created a name for themselves or a brand. Then I can see that their image would be sacrosanct. I hadn't intended to identify the original photographer as it wouldn't mean anything to the purchaser if they were 'unknown' anyway and the image would have been post processed anyway - it was to be just a financial transaction, paying them a royalty each time it was used.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

[Colorado David]

You're asking for a strange combination of work for hire and complete buy-out.  There are copyright and ownership issues with what you propose.  By not identifying the original creator, you have accidentally destined the image to be an orphaned work.  In the strange new world of micro stock you may get some takers, but certainly no one that I know.  I don't know a single photographer, commercial or otherwise, who would delegate this level of artistic license to someone else.

[DeanChriss]

I don't know a single photographer, commercial or otherwise, who would delegate this level of artistic license to someone else.

+1
It's customary for photographers to provide the finished work, and when it's sold the gallery takes a commission.

I hadn't intended to identify the original photographer as it wouldn't mean anything to the purchaser if they were 'unknown' anyway...

If Malta is anything like the U.S you'll find that signed prints sell better than anonymous ones, even if the author is 100% unknown. People want, and will pay more for, prints that are created by the photographer. Otherwise it's like buying a generic poster or post card.

[angolden]

Maybe I'm missing something but do you essentially want people to give you there RAW files, so you can make them look like your images, sell them alongside your work, and not credit the photographer on the promise that you will pay for sales of prints from a gallery without any way for the original photographer to know if you are selling their work or not. That's probably going to be a tough sell. Not naming the photographer denies them potential future sales if someone likes their work.

[steveclv]

Maybe I'm missing something but do you essentially want people to give you there RAW files, so you can make them look like your images, sell them alongside your work, and not credit the photographer on the promise that you will pay for sales of prints from a gallery without any way for the original photographer to know if you are selling their work or not. That's probably going to be a tough sell. Not naming the photographer denies them potential future sales if someone likes their work.

I'm thinking I might be being a little naive from the responses I'm getting but in a nutshell, yes what you outlined was my idea. Of course I would hope that we could find some way of ensuring that they did get paid when a picture sold and I have no intent to defraud anyone - in fact the opposite as I WANT them to get paid so that I can get more from them.

Given our remote location and that it's highly unlikely that anyone would go in search of the original photographer anyway I thought it might work.

Where do the companies that sell 'generic' artwork source from?

I really appreciate the feedback - it's helping me to formulate some alternatives.

[steveclv]

Can I add another thought into this thread.

How many photographers would be willing to sell their images outright? I'm not talking about the high end guys who make thousands from their photos - I'm talking about the average pro or semi-pro who produces some nice shots that have some value but would like to sell some of them to boost their earnings.

I am thinking of creating a web site where a photographer could submit a jpg image which will be watermarked and then either auction it or sell it (just like eBay) and then when paid for, they release the raw file and it's sold outright with a full release.

It differs from conventional stock libraries insomuch as it would be a one-off outright purchase and I anticipate that the amount earned by the photographer would be higher then they earn from stock libraries.

Would it work?

[Rob C]

Steve, I don't know a single snapper who would play the game you want, at least, not unless he knows you very well and has reason to trust you.

There are problems enough already in this world with rip-off artists helping themselves to other photographers' work; despite any calming oils you might throw on the waters, it will still look like a stormy night in Gozo. At least if folks raid your website, they can be tracked. But prints: on a holiday island with more timeshare than sand?

You really should try another business model.

Rob C

[steveclv]

I don't seem to be getting my ideas across very well do I

I appreciate that stolen images from web sites are rife - big problem for anyone in the web business but that's what I can avoid. Anyone can steal a jpg but people cannot steal a Raw file because it's a 30MB file - not a 400k jpg.

How much would someone charge to sell a photograph that they took outright?

If you were offered $50 a photo would you be interested? $100? $250? - how much?

Let's be honest, there are a million and 1 pictures out there and many of them would make great framed pictures - they can't all be worth thousands of dollars.

I have a commercial photographer friend who takes photos for women's fashion - he get's paid $20 a photo and the photos are given to the client. What's so different about non-commercial photographers getting paid the same?

What am I missing here?

*Update*
Ok, I just spent a few minutes searching Google for discussions about rights management etc and I am now beginning to get the picture (no pun intended lol)

The "professional" photographers see their images as being their long term bread and butter and so are reluctant to ever sell the rights to them - even if they are 'so-so' images. I have reviewed quite a few 'professionals' web sites and their galleries and I haven't been so impressed so far - maybe 2 or 3 exceptional photos and a whole lot of ho-hum stuff that didn't impress. If anyone can suggest a truly professional photographers gallery then I'd be most appreciative.

Which leads me to ask 'what makes a professional' - it should be 3 years at Art college and 5 years apprenticeship - but of course these days it would appear that almost anyone can invest $10k in a camera and computer and suddenly they become a professional. So it's to this group of people that I was hoping to be able to purchase images for reproduction/sale rather than the true Professionals who have invested their life into it.

The customer demographic that I have I have to work with might invest $300 in a picture - they are not in the market for a $1500 picture and I see an opportunity for these semi-pros to be able to sell their better images at a fair price.

And the more that I read what I just wrote it sounds way too demeaning than I meant it to sound so I had better shut up at this point.

[Go Go]

"Re: How to purchase 3rd party photography
« Reply #9 on: Today at 07:40:03 AM »
   ReplyReply Reply with quoteQuote
I don't seem to be getting my ideas across very well do I Smiley

I appreciate that stolen images from web sites are rife - big problem for anyone in the web business but that's what I can avoid. Anyone can steal a jpg but people cannot steal a Raw file because it's a 30MB file - not a 400k jpg.

How much would someone charge to sell a photograph that they took outright?"

5 figures for some depending on the usage, 6 figures for others> As I say depending on the usage (when, where, how long, what)?
Photography is a business, it is commerce.

[steveclv]

5 figures for some depending on the usage, 6 figures for others> As I say depending on the usage (when, where, how long, what)?
Photography is a business, it is commerce.

You see that is what I am having a hard time understanding - it's a business - absolutely - and a business has to make money.

So take this picture from your gallery
http://giorgioniro.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/LazyPoint/G0000dA77gorqA54/I0000EKrL3Y3orJE
You have to admit it's not your best work, has several noticeable problems and as far as I can see has no commercial value - so if you were offered $100 for it what reason would there be not to sell it?

Now, quite a lot of your work I could see having commercial value in the media/news especially if the subject has value in its own right, but the generic photos.... well I am not sure I fully understand that yet.

It's almost when I head out shooting (I'm one of those self-taught semi-pros - I make money from photography but I didn't get the degree or work in a darkroom for 10 years) and every time I press the shutter I'm thinking "that was a $50 shot" or "wow, that was a $1000 shot". Everything has a price.

[Go Go]

I am sorry that I participated in this discussion.

The image that you linked to is part of my archive, and has no commercial value to me because it was part of a story that was told 3 years ago.

Participation in the industry can change your perception of "what a photograph is worth" once you ask the following questions of the buyer.

What is the picture to be used for?
When (season/holiday/WorldCup)?
Where (billboard, magazine, POP)?
How long?

For a more thorough explanation, go buy a photo from Getty images or any reseller.

[steveclv]

Yelhsa

So would you supply me the raw file for the 2 that you suggested for $100 each? Full rights.

If so, then we are getting close to what I am looking for - not specifically those 2 images of course but something similar.

Otherwise I don't see a way that I can obtain your best images for reproduction and sale. That would require a level of trust that wouldn't be likely to happen given that you don't know me from Adam and I am not located in the US.

Unless anyone can suggest a way that can make it work for both parties?

[steveclv]

I think before you start passing judgement on other photographers images you should include a link to your own work. As you say, we don't know you from Adam. I would be very interested to see some of your $1,000 shots.
Regards,
Paul
 

Paul, I wasn't trying to denigrate anyone's work other than drawing a comparison between commercially valuable work and work that had an intrinsic value. As I said in the post, the web site showed some pretty amazing pictures and some that were less well composed and had issues - and were therefore of no or little commercial value. I didn't say he was a bad photographer - after all, we all take a high percentage of poor shots compared to the keepers, it's the name of the game.

So I won't post my work here as it would not serve any purpose as it wasn't meant as a criticism.

[jferrari]

Ooh, I wanna play, too! A hundred bucks a pop for stuff on the cutting room floor! Sign me up! I'd even be willing to accept $99 or $98 apiece.

[Go Go]

Hey Steve,

I took a while to get back to this thread because I had work to do, sorry.

I find your post regarding my work very curious, are you being disrespectful of me? Would you mind giving us a little background as to your identity, in short who are you?

Most photographers on this forum actually identify themselves for the sake of context (signature line). That way we know who we are talking to.
How about you     steveclv ?

https://www.google.com/#q=+%09steveclv

[Jeff Weir]

This is a very funny thread.

[Jim Pascoe]

I don't seem to be getting my ideas across very well do I

I appreciate that stolen images from web sites are rife - big problem for anyone in the web business but that's what I can avoid. Anyone can steal a jpg but people cannot steal a Raw file because it's a 30MB file - not a 400k jpg.

How much would someone charge to sell a photograph that they took outright?

If you were offered $50 a photo would you be interested? $100? $250? - how much?

Let's be honest, there are a million and 1 pictures out there and many of them would make great framed pictures - they can't all be worth thousands of dollars.

I have a commercial photographer friend who takes photos for women's fashion - he get's paid $20 a photo and the photos are given to the client. What's so different about non-commercial photographers getting paid the same?

What am I missing here?

*Update*
Ok, I just spent a few minutes searching Google for discussions about rights management etc and I am now beginning to get the picture (no pun intended lol)

The "professional" photographers see their images as being their long term bread and butter and so are reluctant to ever sell the rights to them - even if they are 'so-so' images. I have reviewed quite a few 'professionals' web sites and their galleries and I haven't been so impressed so far - maybe 2 or 3 exceptional photos and a whole lot of ho-hum stuff that didn't impress. If anyone can suggest a truly professional photographers gallery then I'd be most appreciative.

Which leads me to ask 'what makes a professional' - it should be 3 years at Art college and 5 years apprenticeship - but of course these days it would appear that almost anyone can invest $10k in a camera and computer and suddenly they become a professional. So it's to this group of people that I was hoping to be able to purchase images for reproduction/sale rather than the true Professionals who have invested their life into it.

The customer demographic that I have I have to work with might invest $300 in a picture - they are not in the market for a $1500 picture and I see an opportunity for these semi-pros to be able to sell their better images at a fair price.

And the more that I read what I just wrote it sounds way too demeaning than I meant it to sound so I had better shut up at this point.

You are opening a whole can of worms here.  If you think you can spot which pictures will sell just find the photographers and offer to buy their work from them.  If they are amateurs, and there are some very good ones shooting spectacular landscapes and wildlife, they will probably happily sell you their images for $100 - outright.
Or do you want them to take all the risks supplying you with 100's of pictures which you may or may not sell, and which if you do sell you may or may not pay them a royalty which may only be $15.

Why would anyone except if they are local to you bother with the latter scheme.  Especially if they are a professional.  And if you want to know what a professional is, it's a person who makes a living from photography, and if any good has no time for messing about hoping to get tiny royalties from possible sales from an organisation that has no track record.

If you do enough legwork I'm sure you will find plenty of photographers happy to engage in your scheme.  But perhaps not via Lula.  Good luck though.

Jim

[steveclv]

First of all GoGo - NO I wasn't being disrespectful - read my post and you will see I said that you created some amazing photography! The one I picked on was just an example to show an inferior shot that had no value because it had several issues which anyone could pick up including yourself if you analyzed it. We all create a high percentage of throwaways especially now we are in the digital domain - so, no, I do respect you as a photographer.

Secondly, thanks Jim. I think your post was very constructive.

I don't expect someone to send me thousands of photos - I would suggest a theme or themes that fit into my gallery style and then see what they had available. So I know for example that I want to have a couple of shots of the Las Vegas strip - so someone would put up a handful of watermarked JPGs online, I'd find one that worked, we'd agree a price which I would send via PayPal and they would send me the Raw file and an letter of release by email.

Maybe then I would have need for a picture of Monument Valley, UT - same process.

I think that you are correct that it might be better targeted at semi-pros rather than what might be assumed to be the typical LULA audience but I suspect that many LULA participants may fall into that demographic.