posted
You know, it actually rings a bell. I think I have seen something like this. Why an auction, though? If it's digital, you have as many copies as you want to have.
posted
Even though all digital photographs can be reproduced indefinitely, that does not mean each digital photograph is worth the same. I guess I favor auctions because I see them as the best way to determine the true market value of a photograph.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stock photography is most consumed by marketing people and design people. They buy whole CDs of it at a time and particular images they need for a certain project. There's no point in aucitoning to these people because the amount a single photo would bring at auctionn for exclusive rights is far less than if sold at a set price many times over for limited rights, which is all they want.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Most of the people who purchase digital stock photographs are professional web designers with a large enough budget to purchase whole image libraries.
But what about amature webmasters who only wants two or three photographs for their website? I know a lot of them just "borrow" these images, but surely some of them wouldn't mind paying for photographs if they are cheap.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The value of a photograph is often determined by how much it sells for--so if a photographer sells their photograph cheaply, the image that portrays is one of lesser quality.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I see, amateur webmasters tend to use free graphics/photos or find people to "borrow" from.
We, actually, had a small company email us and ask to use one of our photographs. I told Tom he should've asked for some compensation, but he let them use it for free. It was very strange, though, because the woman seemed to have just been googling and she didn't even have the real photograph, but the thumbnail.
Posts: 1777 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stock photographs are cheap, generally. A good photo for non-commerical use will often cost under $50, and a good photo for commercial use will usually cost under $200 (note, these might be the same photo, the cost is more about the licensing).
And yes, those are cheap. If they're the sort "you could take yourself" then they aren't charging those prices.
For instance, a pretty decent picture for two years commercial use on a web page looks to be about $275 from getty images, and they're at the high end (not the very high end, but the high end).
Often it'll make more sense to splurge $600 on a "royalty free" cd (which means you can use the images without additional fee, usually anywhere and as much as you want). Such a CD will include hundreds of images, either an assortment or on a specific theme or such.
Because real web designers have collected CDs and such, they have access to many very nice images at little additional cost to a customer, which is one reason people should find real, professional web designers.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Often it'll make more sense to splurge $600 on a "royalty free" cd (which means you can use the images without additional fee, usually anywhere and as much as you want).
That makes perfect sense for a professional or semi-professional web designer, but what about a webmaster with a hobby site who wants to add three or four nice photographs without stealing them?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
a) find cheaper images (there are plenty of cheap images out there, you can buy photocds in retail stores for ten or twenty dollars)
b) take your own images (or get someone to take them for you, perhaps a photography student would oblige for cheap)
c) find a website with some pictures you like and ask the owner of the images if you can use them
d) search for public domain images (I got the picture used at http://consulting.fugu13.com from the DNR's pics).
d) pay the not for profit licensing price on a few professional images. how much this'll be will vary by source.
There are tons of options and photos available out there. You have no right to whatever photo you want, you must obtain the right to use a photo. If your chosen photo costs a lot of money and you can't find a substitute, tough. Your design was too inflexible.
Its worth noting that purchasing a print, or even the only print and negative, for a photo does not give you any rights to reproduce it for anything but personal use (that is, things covered under fair use). Putting it on a web page would be definitely not covered.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the suggestions Fugu. That is a very eye catching picture you use for your banner. What is a DNR?
I guess I am looking for (or dreaming of) a system like this:
I'm a webmaster located in Los Angeles and I want a picture of Statute of Liberty.
X went to New York for vacation and took a lot of pictures with his digital camera, one of which is a great shot of the Statute of Liberty. X is not a professional photographer, but he does enjoy sharing his pictures with others.
What if there is a website like www.auction-my-pictures.com, where X could upload his pics and receive bids on them. I would, for example, bid a dollar for that picture.
X would not feel insulted by the low bid, since he is not a pro like Mack. Is this just a completely insane idea? Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Department of Natural Resources. They have tons of pics from studies and such they've commissioned, and by far most of them are in the public domain (certain ones taken by subcontracting companies are not). You can find access to them all over the web. Similarly for many other government agencies -- for instance, there were several photographers commissioned to take photographs of the great depression, and many of those works are in the public domain.
Actually, now that I think about it, I may ahve gotten that image from the (closely related) Fish and Wildlife service: http://pictures.fws.gov/
Your suggestion could work, possibly with some modifications, but its unlikely to take off. May be worth looking into, though. The main thing is you'd have to restrict it to amateurs, or else market forces would quickly bring the values of photographs in line with comparable ones on other sites.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
