I have my photo's hosted on Flickr, and I received the following email this evening.

Greetings,

My company would like to purchase the rights to a couple of
your Seattle skyline shots. We can pay $100, via Paypal. If
interested, please email me back at email address here and
I'll let you take a look at our contract.

Allan

On a lark, I emailed the company back, and they want to purchase the rights to two of my Seattle photo's for $100. They would like the high-res image sent either via the FTP server or via CD. Personally I thought $100 for two high-res photo's was a bit under the belt. But then again, I have never sold any photo's before.

With that said, is this a lowball offer? Or is it reasonable? Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

-Nick

Without any additional information to go off of, I'd assume they want full reproduction rights forever. $100 is a joke for that. It's analogous to offering to buy a house for a few thousand.

Nick,

Ultimately it depends on what they want to use it for. Photo costs should ideally be tied to usage, and of course, the cost of producing the image.

If it's going to be a small 1/4 page in their one-time monthly internal newsletter to 50 employees, then it's a good price. If it's going to be the cover of their quarterly catalog to 50,000 customers, then you're getting your face ripped off.

Think about how much you spent to get that photo, including the amortized cost of your gear. Getty is selling web-only royalty free images for $25 or so, the standard editorial rate is $500 for a full page image - if you're lucky.

The key here is you're not selling your image but licensing it - for a specific use. Ask the company what they want to use the image for and then you can start to think about how much it's worth to you.

Also, if you're a full-time pro (and it sounds like you're not from this question) then $50 bucks for a vacay snapshot is pretty reasonable. I've sold a stock image for $300 and felt I was not recouping my expenses...so it's all relative ultimately.

There are a few websites that guide you on pricing base on usage - just google photo pricing and a few will turn up I'm sure. Maybe some other people will post such sites for you.

Otherwise, congrats on getting a photo noticed and compelling enough for someone to offer you money for - that's an accomplishment in itself.

Thanks for the advise, guys.

I shot him over a follow up email with a few questions - one of which was the intended use of the photo's. The company rep emailed me back and said they were going to be used for brochures, but that they would not need the full res shots that I have stored on my HDD.

Again, thanks for your quick insight, Ryan and Mike. I'm definitely no pro at this, so your replies helped.

-Nick

Ryan Britton wrote:
Without any additional information to go off of, I'd assume they want full reproduction rights forever. $100 is a joke for that. It's analogous to offering to buy a house for a few thousand.
a HUGE +1!!!!

They will own the shots FOREVER. Maybe look into "limited usage rights" instead.

What does the contract actually say?

Chris Maccubbi wrote:
Ryan Britton wrote:
Without any additional information to go off of, I'd assume they want full reproduction rights forever. $100 is a joke for that. It's analogous to offering to buy a house for a few thousand.
a HUGE +1!!!!

They will own the shots FOREVER. Maybe look into "limited usage rights" instead.

So what? If he wasn't going to use them for anything else and he can take new ones if he likes, why the hell not sell it for $100?

Taylor Barrett wrote:
Chris Maccubbi wrote:
Ryan Britton wrote:
Without any additional information to go off of, I'd assume they want full reproduction rights forever. $100 is a joke for that. It's analogous to offering to buy a house for a few thousand.
a HUGE +1!!!!

They will own the shots FOREVER. Maybe look into "limited usage rights" instead.

So what? If he wasn't going to use them for anything else and he can take new ones if he likes, why the hell not sell it for $100?


He is certainly free to sell them for $100, just as you can sell your 5D for $50, but why would you? Businesses, and even amateurs are free to set their prices. Since he has an interested buyer, why not set a price that is in line with industry standards? I would not suggest he tries to rip off the buyer, but asking and receiving a fair price is how these things should work.

Michael Seto wrote:
you're getting your face ripped off.




Hah, that is not a very comforting mental image.

OP, how about $100 per photo instead of $100 for 2 photos? "Used for brochures" doesn't mean much. How many brochures, and how large will the photo on the brochures be?

It just seems like this company is trying to get a quick and easy sale out of somebody. And that somebody is you.

It just seems like this company is trying to get a quick and easy sale out of somebody. And that somebody is you.

Or maybe not.

What does the contract actually say?