Best pricing reference guidelines for my collection of photos

<p>What is the best guidebook for pricing of photos I have already taken? I guess you would call these stock photos. I am known internationally as an artist, not a photographer but take studio images of each of my pieces, some of which go on the web or are seen in the press. Every week I get requests to use the photos in one way or another...calendars, books, magazines, logos, etc...even fashion designs for clothing. I do nothing but provide existing images electronically, sized to their needs. Each negotiation is uncomfortable in that I don't have a firm grounding in pricing these things other than finding out how large the company requesting the image(s) is, how many will be printed and for what and how many times, and area of distribution ... for which I price accordingly -- but I don't really know where to begin. I do use the graphic artist guild's books which are of great help but is there something more specific to stock photographs?</p>

<p>This is a question like "How long is a piece of string?" The books you mention may be of use, as may this:<br>

http://www.londonfreelance.org/rates/photobk.html<br>

A small example from my own experience - one of my stock pix of David Bowie is being used for £125 as a 1/4 page in an octavo-size book on the basis of £250 for a full page, £125 for a half-page or less. Always a good idea to respond to requests for quotes by saying "Well, I don't know what your budget is, but I usually charge X [an amount on the high side of normal]". If a client says yes to this, great, if not you can then "generously" offer a discount down to your normal rate. OF COURSE sell only one-off repro rights, never more, and certainly not the full copyright unless the client offers a fortune!</p>

<p>There are a number of stock photo pricing guides on the 'net, but they aren't very up to date. The best solution is to open an account on one of the big stock sites, and price a photo similar to yours for the same use, placement, duration, etc.<br>

But as David says, all the pricing guides in the world are no help if the suggested price far exceeds the client's budget.</p>

 

<p>If the images are merely reproductions of your artwork, then they aren't really photos as such. They are just documentation of what the artwork looks like. If the artwork is flat, like a painting or drawing, then the image has no real significance of its own. If the artwork is three dimensional like a sculpture, you might argue that the lighting, composition, etc. has some influence, but it is still primarily a documentation of the artwork.<br /><br />Based on that, the photos most likely have no value in and of themselves, IMHO. Rather, it's the artwork that has value, and that's what someone wants to reproduce in a calendar, clothing design, etc. When someone makes that kind of use, you should be pricing based on the value of the art, not on what a photographer might get for a quarter-page reproduction of a photo. And the number could likely be significantly higher than what a regular photo might bring.<br /><br />If the photo is for a news organization, you should not be charging at all. You are the one receiving value in that situation, since they are providing the publicity that makes you "known internationally as an artist" (and keeps you known if you already are).<br /><br />I would say that magazines most likely fall under the category of news organization, along with newspapers, news web sites, TV news programs, etc. <br /><br />With books, it depends. For an academic textbook about the "great artists of the world" or great artists of a particular style, I would say you should not expect to be paid. Again, it is publicity that helps establish or maintain your reputation. For a book called "The Artwork of Chris Maynard," that's a commercial venture that hinges entirely on being able to show your artwork. But again, in that case you should be getting paid for granting the right to the publisher to make money off your artwork, not for the comparatively insignificant amount a third party photographer might receive for taking photos of your artwork.<br /><br />In short, it's the art that has value. The photos of the art (unless there are details I'm not aware of) are just a mechanical reproduction of the art, something used to get art from the museum wall or pedestal onto the printed page.<br /><br /></p>