Usage of Lake Placid image as a Post Card

[naturephoto1]

I was just approached a few days ago by a New Hampshire based Postcard company looking to expand into the Adirondacks to use my Lake Placid photo for a Postcard. They offer $100 which is not much money. I have only used photos in the past for promotional invitations for my 10 solo exhibits including 2 in NYC. I have never really considered selling postcards since the photographer does not make much money on them.

I have been participating in Fine Art Shows for the past 11 years; I have cut back on my Art shows and am in the process of looking for gallery representation for my work. The Lake Placid photo is one of a series of 3 images that I sell as fine art. The 3 are shown below (the Lake Placid photo is the 2nd image). These images are the 3rd, 6th, and about the 10th (shown in order below) most successful images that I have. These images have resulted in tens of thousands of dollars in sales of fine art photographs.

I also supply stock images, which I do not push and have had only a small amount of success.

My photos have been used as stock in Hong Kong and Czechoslovakia. Additionally my work has been used (including for stock) by Leica Camera USA; Bogen Photo/Gitzo (images in their corporate offices); Microsoft; Cymbolic Sciences (maker of the LightJet); Sierra Club; Ever Color Fine Art; and Laser Light Photographics. Additionally, over the years, Fuji Film USA has expressed interest in using several of my images.

In any case, I would appreciate any comments about having this or perhaps several of my Adirondack photos used as Postcards. Do you think that this would damage the sale of my fine art images or do you think that having images that were turned into postcards would be of enough promotional value to aid in further business success.

Thanks for any comments and suggestions.

Rich

[Scott Kathe]

Hi Rich,

I'd pass on the $100, your images are worth a LOT more than that.

I would put together a submission for Adirondack Life magazine. I won their photo contest several years ago and that gave me the confidence I needed to write a proposal to do an article on carnivorous plants in the area with some of my images. The article was published a couple of years ago. Put together a nice submission for their wall calender and if you can come up with a story to tie some of you images together do that and write a query letter to see if they would be interested in publishing it. It's going to pay a lot more than $100 and get your name out there.

Good luck,

Scott Kathe

[Charles Carstensen]

Rich, your work is wonderful. I feel you would diminish the quality by licensing to a third party publishing postcards.

[Gordon Moat]

Take a look at pricing for similar images at Getty Images (http://www.gettyimages.com), or Corbis (http://www.corbis.com). If they cannot price above what stock images normally run, then they should not get your custom image for less. Rather than flat reject their offer, go back to them and ask what you really would be willing to take for that image. Be sure to watch, or control, any wording of usage or licensing. You might also want to try posting your question on PDN Forums, and probably get a more realistic idea, plus learn more in the process. Best of luck on this, and don't sell your work short.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Donald Miller]

Quote: "The Lake Placid photo is one of a series of 3 images that I sell as fine art. The 3 are shown below (the Lake Placid photo is the 2nd image). These images are the 3rd, 6th, and about the 10th (shown in order below) most successful images that I have. These images have resulted in tens of thousands of dollars in sales of fine art photographs."

How can you even give this offer any credibility given the information that you have provided? My math indicates quite a gap between $100 and hundreds of thousands of dollars. I wonder at your motivation in posing this question to us.

[naturephoto1]

Hi Donald,

If I accepted the offer for the usage of the image as a postcard, I never intended to not continue to sell the images as fine art both through direct sales and galleries. I was only asking whether: 1) it would basically cheapen my work and lessen the value of the image, or 2) would there be sufficient benefit from added exposure via the postcard for enough promotional value to aid in further business success.

Rich

[Frank Petronio]

That is the going rate for postcards actually. And that is why most postcards are mediocre.

It's hard to make money from postcards. Some of the company's are owned by people who started out as photographers actually. They have to do a lot of cards to make a living.

[mtomalty]

Richard

I earn most of my income from licensing my images as stock through various
agencies.
Postcards/greeting cards normally are licensed for between $125-$150 per image
so if your quote is meant to include all three images then it is a bad deal.
As to whether postcard use devalues your work I think only you can determine that but,in my opinion,it does not and with proper credit,etc provides a little promotional
exposure.

Mark

[Brian Vuillemenot]

I don't think selling it for a postcard would cheapen your fine art images, or erode into their value. If anything, the credit you would get on the back of the postcard would promote your work, and it's an extra $100 in your pocket. I'm not sure why the term "post-card image" has taken on such a negative connotation in the last few years- there are plenty of great images on postcards (as well as crappy ones, at that). I bought a post card of Ansel's "Moonrise Hernandez" at the Ansel Adams Gallery for 75 cents since I can't afford 60 grand for a real one. Does that cheapen that value of the originals? Why are so many photographers (many of whom aren't selling anything) so critical of post card photography?

[Greg Lockrey]

I'd do it just for the extra exposure. (Excuse the pun.) If you are already making good $$$ for these images, so what if they are on post cards. AA, Edward Weston et al have pictures are on postcards and doesn't hurt their sales. Think of it as advertising. Just make sure that your name is mentioned that's all. When I make art cards for my clients I give them half off normal printing rate so that I can put my logo on the back. It get's me some new sales. So it's worth it. This notion that it's beneath your talents is what keeps good photographers from making a buck. Your'e getting basically a $100 for letting them use your image that's already been made and they do all the printing and marketing. Like you said, there is no real profit in it. You will become known to more people and you don't have to pay for it either. Sometimes you will put your foot in a door that you never knew before was there in the first place. ;)

[claudiocambon]

I would pass. The rate is so low that you can afford to (100 isn't going to break your bank, I assume!), and it helps send a message that your images are worth more. Photographers only hurt themselves when they go this low with this quality of work. The tougher calls are when it's for real money but humilating terms (full non-exclusive but unlimited, indefinite buyout for global corporate advertising in all media for 1,000, just to throw out a number). In that case you might need that money, and would be more tempted.

Have you made a counter-offer that is acceptable to you? You have nothing to lose by doing so.

By the way, rates used to be around 500 for first runs....

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Rich,

As low as $100 sounds, it's pretty much the going rate for small regional post card and souvenir publishers. National publishers will pay more ($150 - $200), but still not enough to get excited about.

I've licensed a number of my images to both regional and national publishers. The way I look at this is will this sale be an isolated one-time event (in which case it's probably not worth the 100 bucks), or is it likely to lead to additional sales with this client. Two examples:

I have an image of Bryce Canyon that was originally part of a large submission to a regional calendar/post card/souvenir publisher. I submitted the photos specifically for their annual calendar submission request. Even though their rate for one-time calendar usage seemed low ($125 at the time - which I knew was comparable to my local regional publishers for the same usage), I figured it was worth the time to send them a submission as it was a good way to get my foot in the door at another client. Besides, photos sitting in my stock files don't earn any money. They need to be in circulation to generate sales.

So, I sent in a batch of 4x5 transparencies. They ended up selecting five of my images for their calendar series that year. So, that submission lead to $625 in initial sales. Plus, it got my foot in the door with that publisher. Right away, they sought permission to re-use one of the images (a Monument Valley shot) for several additional souvenir products. That lead to >$2000 in additional sales for that image.

About a year after the initial calendar sale, they started regularly asking me for additional rights to use the Bryce Canyon image. Over the last six years, additional usage fees for that image have totaled >$5600. The individual fees aren't anything to get excited about ($75 - $400), but it all adds up. Just last week, I sent them contracts and invoices for an additional $1200 in usage fees. In additional to the initial calendar usage, they've used that image for all sorts of souvenirs from key chains and coffee mugs to puzzles and posters. If I would have just looked at their low original calendar fee, I probably wouldn't have thought it worth my time to even pull a submission together which means I would have never gotten the additional sales of those images. It also helped establish a relationship with that publisher than has lead to sales of other images.

Second example... Several years ago a local paper products publisher was looking to re-do their series of souvenir photo books. These are small books full of photos of area landmarks that typically sell for $4.95 - $6.95 and are usually displayed adjacent to the post card racks in gift shops. I had worked with them in the past (they were my first stock sale a couple years prior and a regular client). As they were a smaller regional publisher, their rates were at the low end of an already low market. But, they were local and had always used quite a bit of my work. They were easy to work with and paid promptly.

So, when they called and requested a submission for their Oregon souvenir book series, I pulled together a largesubmission, even though I knew they were only paying $50 per image for inside usage, $100 for the cover and $100 for the centerfold. Another local photographer I know, who was more well known in the local market, told them he would submit, but his minimum usage fee was $100 per image.

They ended up using a lot of my images (17 in the first book in the series, 12 in the second, 5 in the third, etc.). All total, that one submission lead to $2200 in sales - and they gave me a bunch free sample copies of the books that made great promotional material. The guy with the $100 minimum got exactly that - $100. They used exactly one of his images for the centerfold in one of the books. $2200 isn't a huge sale, but to get that from a single submission to a small regional publisher was definitely worth the time and effort. It also helped cement an already good working relationship with that publisher that no doubt lead to additional future sales.

So, do you think this one sale will lead to a working relationship with this publisher and additional future sales? If so, go for it. I really don't see that you have anything to lose. Many well known fine art photographer also sell post cards, no cards and posters of their best selling images. It's just a way to generate a little more income and a lot of name recognition from the people who probably wouldn't buy your fine art prints anyway - and get your name and work in front of more people who might be interested in purchasing a fine art print of the image they saw on a post card at the local gift shop. I have also sold prints of that Bryce Canyon image to people who saw it in the gift shop at Ruby's Inn and wanted something a little more substantial than a key chain or coffee mug. These are print sales that I would not have gotten without the initial calendar usage and subsequent souvenir sales to the same publisher.

On the other hand, if they don't seem interested in using more of your work and want something ridiculous like exclusive, perpetual rights, run the other way. I have found a lot of times publishers ask for more rights than they really need. In addition to higher fees, limiting rights are another negotiating tactic. When you do reach agreement on what rights they will be granted and how much it will cost, be sure to include that in any contracts and invoices - and most importantly make sure they are aware (and it's stated in writing) that those are the ONLY rights granted upon payment of that invoice. Any additional rights will be negotiated, paid, licensed and invoiced separately. This both protects you and opens the door for additional future sales.

Kerry

[Wayne Crider]

Thanks for writing that information to us Kerry. It was enlightening.

[naturephoto1]

Hi Kerry,

Thanks for the information. Usually my stock sales are through the stock agency that represents my work. But, I haven't supplied additional work in years. That is how my photo of a White Bengal Tiger was licensed and used in the Microsoft Encarta since its inception. Microsoft is a tough client and they forced the single usage I believe for 7 years and renewed it I believe for an additional 7 years. They also used it to advertise the Encarta. Boy was I pissed for for the little that we were paid. I am certainly not going to alert my stock agency for this possible sale since these images are not in their possession.

I will discuss the situation with Postcard company to determine how they wish to license the work and if they would be interested in the other photos as well. I will certainly limit the licensing of the work if I go forward with their offer.

Rich