Mag wants to use a pic, would you say yes?

[JulianHJ]

I've been contacted via my Flickr account about one of my images and asked to give permission for it to be used in a weekly photo mag that is published in iPad form. The mag in question is from one of the major UK publishers. The journalist wants to feature it in a gallery and as a Tumblr photo of the day. It mentioned giving full credit and a link to my website (i.e. my Flickr page). I don't imagine I'd get any cash, and I don't have an ipad, so a copy/access to the mag isn't any use.

I can't see any downsides, as I don't sell my images and I've already happily uploaded the image to Interfacelift. Am I missing anything by saying yes?

[cornet]

If you're not currently making any money from your photography then I would say go for it if they are crediting you.

Best case someone contacts you and offers you some work.

Worst case they don't and if you decide to go pro further down the line you can always say "I've been featured in ...."

[AndWhyNot]

Don't assume there's no fee just because it hasn't been mentioned. I've had several enquiries in recent weeks, none of which mentioned a fee but which have netted several hundred pounds by me asking.

Reply with a "What's the image use fee" or a less demanding "Is there a fee for image use". Don't devalue your own work by automatically giving it away.

[Simpo Two]

The first question is better; the second begs the reply 'no'.

Or you could just say 'Sure but my minimum rate is £50; who should I send the invoice to?'. They might agree or they might go off looking for another free one.

[JulianHJ]

Cheers gents, I wasn't sure if these guys generally pay or not. I'll ask politely.

[Pints]

Congrats BTW. A link to the pic in question perhaps?

[JulianHJ]

Just checked which pic the journalist was referring to - turns out it's one of several with the same name, and not the most popular one either! I'd forgotten that I'd used the title again more recently. Here it is:


Porth Nanven by julianhj, on Flickr

[JulianHJ]

Got an email reply, £25 fee, and they want to use a different image - the one that I'd originally thought they were referring to:


Porth Nanven by julianhj, on Flickr

[Hooli]

I'm no help with the question, but those would make great posters.

[Simpo Two]

Yep, second one is much nicer. Looks like an alien planet.

Congrats on the winnings; 1,000 more sales like that every year and you can give up the day job

[JulianHJ]

Simpo Two said:

Yep, second one is much nicer. Looks like an alien planet.

Congrats on the winnings; 1,000 more sales like that every year and you can give up the day job

Thank you.

You're not the first to make the 'alien planet' comment. 1000 sales

[B17NNS]

Nice pics

A buddy of mine is big into aviation photography, at the Mach loop whenever he gets a free minute.

A mag used one of his flickr pics without permission. He complained. They apologised and gave him £250.

[JulianHJ]

I re-edited it:

[PHuzzy]

Congrats on the result, what a fantastic picture! Although I prefer the one before the re-edit.

[JulianHJ]

PHuzzy said:

Congrats on the result, what a fantastic picture! Although I prefer the one before the re-edit.

Thanks, what's better about the first? I'm debating which to submit. The newer version was created in LR with Nik plug-ins, the original just in DPP. The newer one is displayed via Thumbsnap rather than Flickr, which might mean it's displayed at a lower quality. I've also lowered the DPI quite a lot as requested by the journalist.

[GetCarter]

I too prefer the original. Less colour saturation... more believable.

Great pic BTW.

I've had a couple of double page spreads this month - but as Simpo says, one would kinda need a constant stream to pay the bills!

(Besides which... music = royalties... photography = constantly buying lots of kit!)

[PHuzzy]

GetCarter said:

I too prefer the original. Less colour saturation... more believable.

Great pic BTW.

I've had a couple of double page spreads this month - but as Simpo says, one would kinda need a constant stream to pay the bills!

(Besides which... music = royalties... photography = constantly buying lots of kit!)

Pretty much this. I think the amount of detail in the foreground of the re-edit takes some focus away of the sky and mid/background.
They're both great pics but if I was buying a canvas/print of it, I'd like the 1st one.

[JulianHJ]

Cheers for the critique, I'll go with the original.

[marctwo]

The first one is better, it has a lighter feel to it.