> Thank you and these are scheduled to go on display in March. I will have these
> printed 18x27 inches to exaggerate the size of these 5/8th inch tall figures. I
> only use the boardroom/office reference as an example since these images are based
> on hi-tech terms. I think we are saying the same thing. Selling a piece through a
> stock site for postcards or greeting cards is one thing, but selling a full size
> JPG and having the buyer offer full size art prints at bargain basement prices
> will only hurt the photographer.
Don:
We are pretty much saying the same thing, but I'm saying it applies specifically to the images
you are asking about and you are trying to broaden the concept into a generalization; I don't
agree with you there. There are images and subjects that are more profitable at lower price
points and people who shoot them should be maximizing earnings in whatever way they can.
> So limiting the use in a license agreement would be important, but is it common
> practice? And thanks for the advice on my site. I was planning on cleaning up
> before the showing. It was mainly a place to share images with family and
> friends, but now it´s getting more serious. Don
No, it's not common to limit licenses this way. Fine art and stock photography cross paths so
rarely that nobody really has to address this issue.
How about something a bit crass; If you're a fine art photographer, concentrate on the art
market and selling the objects of art you craft, and if you're a stock photographer, follow the
market, make images that people buy, and don't start thinking you're an artist. Don't get
these things mixed up!
As for your website, don't worry, we all take pictures like those, it's just that you have to
decide what you're going to show to whom. Your figure/circut still lifes are a mile more
serious than those travel shots and deserve a proper venue.
Brian Yarvin
Author, Educator, Photographer
0 comments:
Post a Comment