Howdy T. Whild, $3k isn't absurd, especially not for a professional photographer. Mostly it depends on what the photo is being licensced for, and what the photog has historically charged.
In this case it looks like it was for a one-off or atleast very limited run banner... and I personally agree with you that it seems a little high. Unforetuneatly when the photo is used without permission then I think it's the photog's call. There fundamentally can't be negotiation after the fact. This is why maybe if Podtech and Lan can't agree what I would suggest is they both agree to have some party they both trust be the arbitrater. There's plenty of great people in this space they both know and can trust. -Mike On 6/30/07, T. Whid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi everybody, > > I've been lurking on this thread and watching this whole thing develop. I > thought I might add my 2ยข... > > Is US$3k unreasonable for this photo? We on this list don't know. > > I'm not in the field, but my wife is a commercial illustrator and I assume > the markets work similarly. The price for usage is based on many factors > that we don't have the specifics for. Mr. Bui isn't selling the photo, he's > selling usage rights. Generally prices are negotiated around size of > reproduction, exclusivity, distribution (how many eyeballs will see it), how > many times it can be used, it what regions it can be used, etc, etc. We > don't have any of these specifics so it's very hard to make a judgment on > whether or not the price is reasonable. > > IMHO if what Mr. Bui is selling is the right to use this photo 1 time > non-exclusively on this printed banner at the conference then 3k seems high > to me. But, as he said, it's been used so he is now in the more powerful > negotiating position. > > Having said that it would probably be best for everyone to resolve it using > a mediator that knows the market and have both parties agree to abide by > whatever price this mediator comes up with. > > Good luck to everyone involved :) > > On 6/30/07, Lan Bui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Robert, I'm sorry about the miscommunication on negotiation. > > > > I only come to you now because you offered yourself, I never thought > > you were one to make executive decisions at PodTech (correct me if I'm > > wrong). I know John is someone that can make executive decisions. > > > > I know how hard it must be for him to deal with his mother death. It > > is a horrible time for me to be asking anything of him. > > > > I keep posting to the group in reply to posts, but I want to talk to > > John when he is ready; or talk to someone else that can make decisions > > for PodTech. > > > > -Lan > > www.LanBui.com > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Scoble" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > You told me on the phone that you did not want to negotiate. At > > least that's > > > how I remember hearing it. Sorry if I heard wrong. You told me > > specifically > > > that PodTech was not in position to negotiate. > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem is I'm getting in between you and John Furrier. John's > > mom died > > > this week which is causing problems figuring out where things are. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll get him to answer you. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding photo prices, I talked with photographers who work for > > Associated > > > Press, Business Week and other magazines. > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that we dropped the ball. No excuses there, but I wasn't > > involved > > > back then and am trying to clean up a mess and having trouble getting it > > > cleaned up because of John's mom's death. > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Scoble > > > > > > > > > > > > ### > > > > > > > > > > > > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Behalf Of Lan Bui > > > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 10:51 PM > > > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Hey PodTech - What's up with Lan's image? > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert, thank you for finally coming out and saying something for > > > PodTech to the community. > > > > > > First, I must say that your statement: > > > > > > "He believes his work is worth that and believes that there isn't room > > > for negotiation on this issue." > > > > > > Is a lie. > > > > > > One of the points in my blog post was that I wanted, at minimum, to be > > > contacted to negotiate. In the last couple days I did negotiate down a > > > lot less than $3000 and even sent an updated invoice for it. So how is > > > this not negotiating on the issue? Remember we talked about this on > > > the phone, so I'm not sure why you left that out. > > > > > > PodTech had the chance to ask to purchase a license to use the > > > photograph before it was used, at which time they would be able to set > > > the terms. That didn't happen. Now that they have used the photograph > > > already, who should set the terms? > > > > > > I gave PodTech over a month to respond to my terms and they didn't. > > > When it was just me that was involved PodTech didn't care. When others > > > started to blog about it and it was giving them a bad name, then > > > PodTech started to care. Remember, that blog post was up for about a > > > month before others started take notice to it. So PodTech showed to me > > > they don't care about me, they only care about their image in the > > > public eye. > > > > > > Next, I am not Thomas Hawk. Wait... Thomas Hawk? I will be the > > > professional and not discuss the prices that PodTech pays him. > > > Remember Robert, you told me how much PodTech pays him and that > > > reinforced my price even more! > > > > > > You also said: > > > > > > "It was easy to see how a mistake was made since usually people in the > > > community who, when invited to an event we held usually give us photos > > > that were snapped at our events for free" > > > > > > I was not contacted... so how could there be a mistake regarding > > > permission? I also never gave (if you meant sent in to PodTech) any > > > photographs that this one could be mistaken for. > > > > > > You also said: > > > > > > "it's easy to miss the copyright on Flickr" > > > > > > Come on, that argument is weak. Putting something in the same place on > > > every page on flickr makes it very easy to not miss. > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > "I asked several professional photographers, the average fee was > > > $300." and "3x what most professionals in the marketplace charge for > > > this kind of work" > > > > > > Please don't lie again. The $300 price point is for stock photography. > > > I even asked John where you guys got $300 from and he said "that is > > > standard for a stock photograph". If there is a photograph with Casey > > > McKinnon holding Vloggies in a stock photography book somewhere I > > > would love to see it. The photograph that was chosen was chosen > > > because it had great value. It is not stock photography and I am not a > > > stock photographer. > > > > > > Ok, lastly. Lets say I accepted $1000. Wow that sounds like a lot of > > > money to many people that aren't making money from their creative > > > work. Well this issue is not about me making money. It is about > > > setting a precedent. > > > > > > If we allow companies to steal work and only pay a standard small fee > > > when they are discovered, what is the incentive for them not steal > > > again? Is that what other companies should learn from this? Just take > > > now and deal with it later if it ever comes up. And don't worry, it > > > still won't cost more than if we paid up front. > > > > > > To anyone else reading this: I hope this clarifies and corrects > > > Roberts post. > > > > > > -Lan > > > www.LanBui.com > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > > <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> , "Robert Scoble" > > > <robertscoble@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Here's what happened. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An employee made a mistake. We recognize that a mistake was made. > > It was > > > > easy to see how a mistake was made since usually people in the > > community > > > > who, when invited to an event we held usually give us photos that were > > > > snapped at our events for free and it's easy to miss the copyright on > > > > Flickr. Thomas Hawk, for instance, takes lots of photos at our > > > events and > > > > gives them to us for free since he's appreciative for the community > > > work we > > > > do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We asked around what a photo like the one that we used by Lan Bui > > > was worth. > > > > I asked several professional photographers, the average fee was > > > $300. Lan > > > > was not commissioned to take photos and an employee made a mistake > > > by using > > > > a photo and not making sure we had the rights to use it before > > using it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Lan wants $3,000. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have offered Lan something between those two prices which we feel > > > is fair > > > > ($1,000 is the price I saw offered by PodTech CEO John Furrier, > > which is > > > > more than 3x what most professionals in the marketplace charge for > > > this kind > > > > of work). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lan wants $3,000. He believes his work is worth that and believes > > > that there > > > > isn't room for negotiation on this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So we're at an impass. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm personally sorry for the whole way this thing has been handled, > > > though, > > > > and still would like to find a way to get the two parties to reach > > > closure > > > > on this problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do want to make sure Lan gets compensated properly for his > > > intellectual > > > > property, but we want to reach a fair price and one that's based > > on what > > > > professionals expect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Scoble > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
