publication fees

[doubledark]

Hi

just had this from a magazine...."Unfortunately, (magazine) does not pay any copyright fees" How do these magazines justify this stance when everyone else gets paid except the photographer ?

Also, can I ask what people charge for their images to be published in print and on the web?


cheers

[Gordon Moat]

Basically it is trade for placement. The idea is that the magazine circulation and target audience are important enough to get your name out to people whom you want to see your work. It is simply another way of advertising. This is very common even in some higher profile magazines.

Take a look at their rate sheet for placing your own ads/images on 1/4, 1/2 or full page, and then you will get an idea of what it would be worth. If this was for a particular client, then charge back the client for the placement; somewhere in the range of 3% to 5% of placement cost (per month/issue the ad runs) would be normal.

If it seems limited placement, or not your target audience, then skip on sending them an image. It has to be worth something to you to run it. Don't run the image if you would not have placed that image in that magazine by paying for the space.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[QT Luong]

Unless the piece is specifically about you and your work, there is almost never any valid reason to allow free use of your images. To find going rates, create an account in a stock photography site such as gettyimages.com

[doubledark]

thanks for the replies.

Trends Magazine (New Zealand) contacted me to say they pay $150/image for print and web use whilst FuturArc (Singapore?) pays nothing.

[Kirk Gittings]

Inability to pay for photo use is an indicator of a magazine that is either very marginal financially or unethical. Any serious magazine has a budget every issue for stock photography. It may be low, but they should pay something. These publications do exist of course, and are usually trade magazines. When this happens to me I approach my architect client to see if they will cover the fees since the exposure is good for them too.

[Lenny Eiger]

There are so many opportunities to do something for nothing - some of those opportunities are actually good for you... However, there appear to be plenty of folks in this world who will be happy to take advantage of you. To allow this is out of integrity - for you. Unless, of course, it allows you to promote something you believe in, or help someone in some way (and they don't have the funds), then its different. I would tell the magazine they can go take the photos themselves.

Just my 2 cents,

Lenny

[Michael T. Murphy]

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/aus/558260167.html

[jnantz]

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/aus/558260167.html


:)

[jnantz]

Hi

just had this from a magazine...."Unfortunately, (magazine) does not pay any copyright fees" How do these magazines justify this stance when everyone else gets paid except the photographer ?

Also, can I ask what people charge for their images to be published in print and on the web?


cheers

good luck getting money from a stone!

i hope your work is copyrighted so you can get something out of
them if they publish you without consent.

john