photo credit: CoCreatr

Back in March PP posted some tips for new photographers advising on what NOT to do if they were to have a successful business. You can see “12 easy ways NOT to succeed”here.

Meanwhile a new site called simply “Dear Photographer” has emerged in a similar vein with some really great tips on it like:

“HDR: Just because you can doesn’t mean you should“

Take a look and you can even submit some of your own too!

PP

If you found this article helpful you may also like to read:

• Why photo credit lines aren’t worth the paper they’re written on (4)
• When does fair use of a photo become copyright infringement? (2)
• What exactly is a photography license? (0)
• Welcome to thephotographybiz.com (0)
• Understanding licensing types: Royalty Free image licences (1)

photo credit: Pink Sherbet Photography

Back in the days of film photographers would use sticky labels to show a transparency or print belonged to them and copyright and contact info. Literally stuck on the slide mount or the reverse of the print. With the advent of digital there was no longer a physical object to stick these on. CDs could be labelled but once your client took those images off your CD and save them onto their machine your data was separated from your images.

So how do we protect our images out there in cyberspace?

Enter Meta Data. A way of storing text fields invisibly inside a file be that PSD, TIFF, JPEG or other digital file types.

If you have Photoshop you can use the many Meta Data fields by opening an image and then selecting File from the top menu and File Info from the dropdown. This opens the image Meta Data fields window. Then click on Description. This field is the most widely used with Headline, Description & Keywords plus Copyright info fields. This is an Adobe field and maps its data to the IPTC Status and IPTC Content fields. Take a look at those too.

Photo Meta Data is underused. Way underused. Yet it could be the way that photographers get round the planned “Orphan Works” laws in the pipeline in the US and UK where companies who can’t identify the owner of a photo will have the power to use it for free!.

Meta Data was standardised by the International Press Telecommunications Council (IPTC) who developed the various Meta Data fields used as a way of being able to read data across all the major news image providers and users. Back in the infancy of digital communications the “IPTC fields” in an image showed the Caption, Description, Licence and copyright information of an image transmitted across the newswire.

Imagine the chaos if a busy newsdesk received a load of wired in images all without captions and locations! From there it grew into an effective way of showing ownership and the rights attached to a digital image.

The Photo Meta Data project has created a site all about Meta Data called www.photometadata.org Bookmark it now as it will turn into a great resource with tutorials and links to free MetaData resources, readers and tips.

Rather than repeat the comprehensive information on photometadata.org I thought I would list 5 reasons why Photo Meta Data should be in every single image you publish:

1) Without data showing you are the owner and that the image is subject to copyright your image may be treated as an orphan and used without your consent. It’s widely held that images with no “owner” are often seen as fair game by publishers. Make sure yours shows the image is controlled.

2) When delivering files to a client make sure that you fill in the Rights Usage Terms field (found in IPTC Status). State the terms of the licence for the reproduction of your image. It will remind your client and/or anyone else coming into contact with it that it is licenced and only to be used in the manner stated.

3) Make sure you put your name, address, telephone numbers, email address and website address in the IPTC Contact field. I also put these at the end of the Description field. People who need to contact you about usage of your image can then do this easily and not use “I couldn’t find them to ask” as an excuse.

4) It can lead to a nice surprise. An image of mine I had long forgotten about was “found” by a newspaper picture desk and used in a weekend edition. It had been sent to them by a client I had shot it for as part of their PR strategy but this second use some years after was totally unrelated to PR and therefore billable. I received a phone call from the team marking up the image uses and a cheque followed. I had marked the IPTC Rights Usage Field with “only for use in connection with Acme Inc. PR – all other uses chargeable”.

5) IPTC is there for a reason, it’s for you to put your ownership into that image. In the current digital “one click copy” era and with unauthorised uses on the rise can you afford not to use it?

PP

If you found this article helpful you may also like to read:

• Why photo credit lines aren’t worth the paper they’re written on (4)
• What exactly is a photography license? (0)
• Orphan Works Legislation explained…. (1)
• Creative Commons Wordpress plugin could spell big trouble for unwary blog publishers (6)
• Alamy announce a ‘Find a Photographer’ service (0)

photo credit: evelynishere

Reading one of my favourite blogs this morning “A Photo Editor” who references a piece in Advertising Age by Jeff Goodby on the relevance of Awards in advertising. Jeff asks his audience if they are becoming “award-chasers” rather than producing relevant advertising material that can really impact how people think.

Jeff says:

“We’ve created a system that rewards work that is increasingly unknown to anyone outside the business. We have become connoisseurs of esoterica. And in the process, we’re becoming more about us, and less about changing the world.

We are becoming irrelevant award-chasers.”

I think there is a very strong relevance for photographers in this message too.

Photography awards themselves are becoming increasingly irrelevant as they focus in on themselves instead of promoting the commercial viability of the photographers who enter. It’s a vicious circle. To get an award photographers may copy previous year’s styles thus not actually shooting like they’d be commissioned to shoot or even entering a commissioned piece of work. They are following a trend. There are numerous examples if you look hard enough of award winners with amazing images whose normal portfolio is totally different, totally commercial – which is what they get paid to produce. IMHO Photo Awards don’t seem to reflect our day to day industry.

Awards mechanisms themselves can appear to have an inflated ego e.g. the AoP don’t give out all their Gold, Silver or Bronze awards each year. A team of judges decide whether an image is worthy of a place in the top three. Is that pretentious? Is that realistic? Is that self-defeating?

Surely those who enter awards do it to try and gain more or better work. Or do they? Does vanity have a big part to play?

The sheer amount of awards to enter invitations (check your email boxes) have shot up tenfold in the last couple of years. No doubt fuelled by the apparent willingness of lemming-like scared-they’re-not-hip-any-longer photographers to throw $50 entry fees away like confetti at a wedding; and for what? The chance to be in a “book” of unknown (or at least unverified) circulation around the industry.

Some Awards of course are long established, but there’s a number of “who the hell are they?” types hanging to their coat tails, sending multiple emails promising recognition and fame and this number is increasing.

You are likely being judged by people you’ve never heard of and you will be forgotten as soon as the winners are announced (or at least once there’s a gap of a couple of months before the next “call for entries” arrives. Tell me the name of the winner of (insert famous award) last year in the (insert category) without Googling it?

A Photo Award in the Web 2.0 age is a pinprick in the sea of images, websites, tweets, blogs et al that an art buyer or creative director sees on a daily basis. The dilution is so strong I doubt they’d remember the award a month on, let alone a year.

Of course the publicity surrounding the “call for entries” and the almost inevitable “call for entries extension” (i.e. we haven’t made enough entry fees to clear our projected profits) far outweighs the publicity given to the actual results and award winners themselves.

Don’t wait for the phone to ring the morning after. The actual financial tangible benefits of paying to enter these “industry awards” can be measured in single dollars – if that.

We’ve not even covered here the vast number of awards aimed at ripping you of all your copyright and or granting “unlimited rights in perpetuity” i.e. a free RF licence. Bear in mind that you’ve had to pay to enter. Those are on the increase too and they’re often aimed at amateurs and the “copyright unaware“. It’s like taking candy off a baby.

So, what are awards really worth? Only you can decide.

Kudos for the insecure? Comfort blanket for the unloved? I say give your $50 to charity – they need it more.

PP

If you found this article helpful you may also like to read:

• When does fair use of a photo become copyright infringement? (2)
• Welcome to thephotographybiz.com (0)
• Is the stock photography bubble about to burst in 2008? (1)
• How to deal with clients who want your photography for the cheapest possible price (3)
• Five types of Professional Photographer – which one are you? (2)

photo credit: spud murphy

Sorry! Was experimenting with having a weekly post of my collated twitter activity show up on the site but I realise this looks awful when delivered to a subscription email or RSS so I’ve turned it off now.

Experiment over!

If you want to follow me on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/photographybiz

PP

p.s. I’ve also reluctantly turned back on comment moderation after a couple of weeks worth of spam that Akismet seems unable to see (looked obvious to me!). From today, if you’ve had any comment approved here before then your comment will show up immediately – if not it will be held for moderation.

If you found this article helpful you may also like to read:

• No related posts.

Powered by Twitter Tools.

If you found this article helpful you may also like to read:

• No related posts.

Powered by Twitter Tools.

If you found this article helpful you may also like to read:

• No related posts.

photo credit: PetroleumJelliffe

I was sent a link to a video on YouTube this week by a friend who laughed and said “this always happens to me”. I don’t know who made this video but it shows the kind of problems many photographers face on a daily basis. Especially in this current recession.

Take a look at the video below – heard this all before?

Unless I’ve missed the point, what this video illustrates so well is the way many clients want top class products for low class fees. They expect to get the best of the best for the least price possible. This is incredibly prevalent in the creative industries where creativity is often viewed as a commodity and not something of value.

In each of the scenarios we saw, the restaurant, the hairdressers, the game store; the client wanted to enjoy the creativity and art of the creator, but didn’t want to pay for it! I always find it astounding that someone can try to lowball a creative without second thought. Yet they wouldn’t try to buy a Mercedes if they only had budget for a Ford. They wouldn’t go into their local foodstore and try and buy a whole smoked salmon for the cost of a budget brand tin of tuna.

But when it comes to paying for creativity, production and ideas – they feel no shame. Some even ask us to work for free and pretend this is a good thing by offering us a credit line! See why credit lines aren’t worth the paper they’re written on here.

The lowballing usually comes in via a couple of different avenues. Either they want us to shoot for a ridiculously cheap rate or they want us to throw in “all-rights” granting usage forever and a day or even a combination of the two (that’s when you’ve got a real lowballer!).

So what can we, as creatives (and I include all those of us who provide creative services not just photographers) do about it? How can we fight back?

I believe we have two options.

Option 1: Turn down the assignment.

There is nothing wrong with saying “I’m afraid I might be outside your budget”. A client who can’t see the value your images may bring to their business is not one you want to be working for. You’re in business. Your business objectives are to make money. If you don’t you’re not doing this as a business :) If you book yourself up with low-paying gigs where you’re giving your time away cheap and/or you are granting a very loose licence for not a lot of money you’re working cheap and you’ll stay working cheap. It’s a vicious cycle to break because you get known as “the cheap guy”.

In business “time is money“. If your time is taken up with low paying gigs you’ll never make any money unless you work a 60 hour week. You could do that in an office but with all the added benefits of sick-pay, a company car, 4 weeks holiday and a decent pension. You get none of those business benefits for free as a photographer. So it doesn’t make any sense to work as a low paid employee when you run your own business. Make your valuable time work for you.

It’s a hard call – especially in a recession. I appreciate that. Do you take the paltry offer of a low day rate while signing over essentially an RF licence for a bespoke shoot OR say “No, sorry – the best I can do is £X for Y usage”. I believe the latter is the right course to take. You want your client base to come to you because of your photography and not because you’re throwing in everything for a cheap rate. But sometimes you might take the former because you want the gig and you can see it’s a low rate but there might be secondary markets to sell the work on to as well.

Option 2: Lower the production values accordingly.

If your client only has the budget for a Ford then shoot them a Ford. Don’t shoot them a Mercedes for the price of a Ford! PP get’s a lot of enquiries from people who see my website, love the images that have a high production value (by production value I mean styling, lighting, post-production and retouching) and want to hire me to shoot the same for them. Once we start pricing up the assignment it becomes clear that they can’t afford that level of production.

I then depends on how I feel about the project. That decides my next move. I always explain that the production values in the images they like are high and that for the budget they are offering I can’t produce images like that. Sometimes I offer to shoot for their budget or somewhere inbetween (always barter ok!) but at a lower production value if the project interests me.

I never shoot for all-rights though. Irrespective of budget, in the long term all-rights is always a bad deal for the photographer.

In conclusion then, either stick to your guns and seek out the clients who do see the value in your images or modify your shooting to fit the budget. Whatever you do, make sure that if you’re shooting a low budget gig then give the client low budget imagery. Don’t turn up with a crew and 10 packs if it’s the budget for a snapper with a flashgun. Make it quick to produce and get it out the door fast. Invoice it and move on. That’s what they’ve paid for. Give nothing more.

Don’t let the flattery that they “love your work” hide the fact that they don’t actually want to pay for it.

As Jodie Foster once said: “Quid pro quo Dr Lecter…”

PP

If you found this article helpful you may also like to read:

• Alamy announce a ‘Find a Photographer’ service (0)
• Why photo credit lines aren’t worth the paper they’re written on (4)
• Assignment Photography: How to charge and price up assignments – part two (4)
• Assignment Photography: How to charge and price up assignments – part three (1)
• Assignment Photography: How to charge and price up assignments – part one (2)

photo credit: Caveman 92223

Alamy have announced today that they’re going to set up a section of the website where buyers of photography can “Find a Photographer”. Hats off to Alamy for a great photographer friendly initiative.

Alamy will shortly be launching a free service to put picture buyers in touch with photographers.

Customers will be able to search by location and see contact details and portfolio images from photographers in the area. Photographers will be able to update their location and availability at any time. This will be useful for customers who need a picture taken at short notice.

‘Find a Photographer’ will launch as a free service. It will be up to the photographer and the customer to define the task, agree a price, transmit images, arrange invoicing and payment and to resolve any problems between themselves.

To qualify for this service, photographers must meet all of the following criteria:

1. Be experienced in conducting assignments and/or commissions
2. Have at least 100 images and 10 sales on Alamy
3. Have a website that showcases your work

PP thinks this is a grand idea – even better if Alamy were to inspect the websites that people submit for quality. The only problem I can see with this being a very low entry threshold is that buyers/commissioners won’t know whether they’re getting someone who can actually deliver images from a commission before its too late. Then the buyer may be disappointed and this could reflect badly on Alamy.

Alamy have a hard judgement call to make on how they sign this area of the website for buyers to see. If they intimate the photographers they list are recommended it might come back to bit them in the butt if the ‘tog fouls up and customer becomes disgruntled, blaming Alamy for the introduction (a bit like your mate arranging you a blind date that he swears is a “looker” and…. well, we’ve all been there).

If, on the other hand, Alamy decide to stay 100% hands off “nothing to do with me guv” then doesn’t that say something about the quality of imagery in the library? Maybe not? Tough call.

Prospective new receivers of commissions would do well to note that it’s not unusual (as Tom would sing) to not get paid for 60-90 days after the commission. They should also have extremely robust terms and conditions of business in place which should be agreed before the commission starts, because without them you’re going to get plucked faster than a Turkey at Christmas by the wily publishers waiting in the wings to relieve you of your copyright/all rights. And there are plenty of those miscreants dotted about the sectors we’re looking at here.

Some PP thoughts for those wet behind the ears in the commissioned world.

I see some on the Alamy forum thinking this is a quick way to easy money and to make more stock images to place with Alamy. Some gigs might be; but some will also be difficult, unrepeatable and you’d better have the skills to nail it first time. The future saleability of assignment images will also depend on what rights are granted to the commissioner. If you’re forced to transfer “all rights” or copyright you won’t own the images to be able to sell them! You must also respect any exclusivity you give as part of your negotiations. Always make them pay more for exclusivity.

A lot of these commissions (if Alamy set this up on a geographical basis as they’ve suggested) will come in with a hugely short lead time and turnaround. i.e. you might get a call at 3pm one day to do a shoot the next morning and deliver files that afternoon. This sort of work is only for those who are full-time, you can’t do assignments part-time – it’s way too unpredictable. So don’t hack-off customers by pretending you’re a full time pro when you’re only available on Wednesday nights and Saturdays!

Don’t forget to charge for mileage, digital file preparation and delivery too. Remember, this is not stock, they are not buying off the shelf here but a one-off shoot so make sure you charge well for the rights you are granting. You’ll also have extra costs like public liability insurance in case your light stand acts as a trip magnet to the local ambulance chaser!

Admin dear admin

You will now have to do the Alamy bits you never see (and it”ll show you just how hard negotiation/debt collection is). You’ll need to negotiate the fee, do the shoot and get it right, deliver the images with a licence, and prepare and send an invoice. Then you’ll have to chase that invoice all the way through the system of Acme Inc. to get paid. Oh yes you will.

Finally, if you’re new to the game we call assignment photography and new to charging for your work and you need to bone up fast – have a look round here at some of the articles (many on charging and licencing) but especially this one OK!:

12-easy-ways-not-to-succeed-in-business-as-a-new-professional-photographer

God speed, you’ll need it!

PP

If you found this article helpful you may also like to read:

• Why photo credit lines aren’t worth the paper they’re written on (4)
• Assignment Photography: How to charge and price up assignments – part four (14)
• Assignment Photography: How to charge and price up assignments – part five (0)
• Understanding licensing types: Royalty Free image licences (1)
• Understanding licensing types: Rights Ready Image licences (0)

photo credit: °Florian

PP presents an easy to follow tutorial. “12 easy ways NOT to succeed in business as a new professional photographer”. Follow these tips and you’ll be flipping burgers inside 48 months.

Contracts and business

1) Don’t have any terms and conditions. You’re a photographer, you’re not actually running a money-making business are you?

2) Don’t discuss and agree fees and a contract before shooting the job. You never bothered finding out how much you were going to get paid and how long you had to work each week when you were in employment. Why start now?

3) Don’t have a clue about your copyright. That way you won’t be offended when people try to grab it.

4) Do charge for your photography by the hour. That worked really well when you were an employee didn’t it? No point in charging a fee for your product instead of the time it takes to make it – you don’t see successful companies doing that sort of thing do you?

Websites

5) Do have a website that lists your ’specialities’ as every style of photography imaginable - even though you’re not really very good at any of them if you’re honest.

6) Do list your gear on your “about me” page. I’m sure you won’t get that £10k ad job unless you tell everyone about the entire contents of your camera bag (and don’t forget to list who makes your camera bag too).

7) Do show images on your website in simulated frames (wood, metal etc). Nothing says “I’m a professional” more than that.

8) Don’t have any good examples of prior commissioned work on your website. Pssst… nobody knows you didn’t actually shoot that can of Heinz beans for money and you just got it out of your cupboard to make it look like somebody paid you to do it.

Making images

9) Don’t bring more than one camera body or lens to a shoot. Nothing ever goes wrong, these things are so reliable nowadays.

10) Don’t bother using any lighting on location shoots. Just push the ISO on your new baby to 6400. That’ll be fine after a bit of Noise Ninja and curves in Photoshop. Nobody will ever notice.

11) Don’t bother shooting RAW. RAW is for purists. You’re a pro – you get it right in the camera. You don’t need to adjust anything after the shoot. All these retouchers have got it so wrong.

12) Don’t bother with colour management or profiles or any of that hocus-pocus. It looks good on your monitor so it should look good on everyone else’s right?

PP

If you found this article helpful you may also like to read:

• How to deal with clients who want your photography for the cheapest possible price (3)
• Alamy announce a ‘Find a Photographer’ service (0)
• When does fair use of a photo become copyright infringement? (2)
• Welcome to thephotographybiz.com (0)
• Is the stock photography bubble about to burst in 2008? (1)

photo credit: Yukari*

If I could embed an mp3 of a violin I’d do it.

In a 6.30pm email to all contributors yesterday (March 18th) the CEO of the Alamy Stock Library, James West announced that the mainly editorial stock agency may well have to succumb to a subscription based model based upon unlimited downloads as a worst case scenario. It would seem the UK newspaper industry is in such a mess it has decided to take its ball home if it can’t buy usage for microstock rates.

I’ve seen some bun fights over on Alamy’s forum and some toys thrown out of the pram (and in this case rightly so) but I’m sure when James clicked on the send button in his office at the end of that day he had no idea of the intense shit storm he was about to unleash. Just read the blog comments. Up to 134 and counting. About 5 in favour of giving our beleaguered newspapers an as much as you can eat buffet for a fixed fee. 99% screaming (literally) for a way to opt-out of Newspaper subscriptions.

Almost 24 hours (save 3 minutes) later James responded to those comments on the blog and no doubt the trillions** of ‘Angry from Croydon’ emails he’d invited his contributors to send him via his personal email inbox.

From James West himself in a comment below:

Clarification to readers – approximately 17,000 contributors received my email about UK newspapers and 300 opted out. The author has used the reaction on the Alamy forum to gauge contributor opinion, which is not representative of opinion across the Alamy contributor community as a whole.

James West
CEO
Alamy

In this follow up response James mentioned allowing an opt-out.

If you’re still unconvinced, please email Member Services, with the subject line “UK newspaper opt-out”, and we will exclude your images from any deals we do with UK newspapers.

If you are going to take my offer of an opt-out, please do something for me in return: wait and see. Don’t rule this out until you have had a chance to gauge the impact it will have on price and volume for yourself. You will be able to opt-out at any point in the future if you wish.

This appeased some but did this stop the masses from revolting? Hell no. Off they went again. 98 comments to date. Some rather well thought out and lucid arguments too. Grab a coffee and read through especially if you’re new to Alamy and/or stock. I can’t help wondering whether Alamy’s policy wing deliberately tosses out a bad news scenario in order to brainstorm possible solutions for free. I know that’s a cynical attitude to take. It could be that they are genuinely concerned about how their contributors feel.

At least they sort of pseudo-consult (albeit in a ham fisted manner) unlike Getty who are more than likely to just tell you to bend over and brace yourself.

24 hours later the cavalry arrive in the shape of another clarification blog post from Head of Content Alan Capel.

You guessed it……. still not enough detail to quell the fires of revolt! Though we did now realise that RM images were fair game for the Newshounds too! Despite assurances that prices would be set on usage, there’s a foul smell of a download model emerging which would let these key customers (only 8% of Alamy’s business mind) fill their boots for an all you can eat monthly fee. RMs RFs RPs the lot.

Contributors rightly point out that under the current model the Newshounds quite often “forget” to account for usages. As it is the key customers get access to download hi-res images on a “self billing” arrangement which trusts said organisations to account for each and every use they have made of the image.

Worse though, and the real crux of a subscription scheme like this is that Alamy can negotiate a price that isn’t far off what they get now on a contractual basis. Guaranteed income. No such guarantee for the contributor who will get the crumbs and see their work devalued even further. Can’t blame Alamy for wanting to secure cash flow in a recession but it’s the contributor that provides the content that gets the rough end of a subscription deal every single time.

Client gets cheaper imagery – Alamy get guaranteed payments – Contributor gets sod all!

The Alamy Forum (PP side note: not for those of nervous disposition) often reports unpaid usage attributed to the Newspaper accounts. So if Alamy can’t control this now (despite assurances they’re taking it seriously) PP wonders how the hell they’re going to control usage under subscriptions where the late nite sub-editor is going to look upon the whole of Alamy as his personal free stock resource. “I’ll mark those uses up later” – not.

More worrying is the precedent this is going to set within the industry. BAPLA have already spoken out against the Newspapers’ attempt to dictate the value of photographer’s work. PP feels that once the magic download rabbit is let out of the hat the other volume clients are going to come asking for it too. There could be a slow creep until the whole editorial and educational use sector is subsumed.

Best kill it now. Like the ill-fated Novel Use scheme. That didn’t work either.

PP thinks Alamy’s contributors have a great diversity of content that’s just not available anywhere else (yes anywhere). Some of it is complete crap but thankfully Alamy Rank is doing a good job in letting that sink to the bottom. There’s good cause for the Newspapers to pay real money to licence Alamy’s diverse content. Without it they’d have to send someone to the outer reaches of whatever godforsaken place they’re doing a piece on and get it shot. And that’s going to cost them way more than the current heavily discounted licence fees they enjoy from Alamy.

Of course they could:

1. Nick it off the web or FlickR (mind you don’t nick a Getty image now Mr Newspaper man); or
2. Persuade a newbie to part with their image for the absolutely wonderful “can’t resist oh no its just too good” reimbursement of a credit line.

Why can’t they just be thankful they can licence rare content for the current 75% off calculator knockdown price. But no, they want it even cheaper. Hey, that’s capitalism! But it takes two to tango and if Alamy show some cojones and stand firm the Newspapers can’t do much about it.

Fast forward to 25th March and in response to the tidal wave of opt-out emails James West feels compelled to write to everyone again. This one isn’t on the blog and it gives more detail on the probable (his words not mine) usage price points of £25 – £55 per use. If I thought that was even remotely possible I’d applaud though it covers the current discounted rates for spot up to 1/8th, getting 60% of £55 for a DPS in a national newspaper is going to seem like a hugely bad deal.

Fact is that Getty and AP who supply newswire sport, breaking news and celebrity images are already way way below that price point. I just can’t see Alamy managing to thrash out a contract with a newspaper in a recession that comes close to £25 – £55 for every single image for single non-exclusive editorial use.

PP is with a number of commentators who call for Alamy to let this sector go. By all means continue to service them at regular prices but don’t cave in chasing 8% of revenue from a dying industry. Newsprint isn’t exactly flatlining yet but they’re in A&E and the prognosis isn’t good.

Further developments are awaited with an uneasy mix of interest and trepidation. Lets hope for the sake of our future editorial sales Alamy’s negotiations with our UK Newspaper magnates are more successful than this guy’s attempt at appeasement.

PP

If you found this article helpful you may also like to read:

• Understanding licensing types: Royalty Free image licences (1)
• Understanding licensing types: Rights Ready Image licences (0)
• Understanding licensing types: Rights Protected or Exclusive image licences (0)
• Understanding licensing types: Rights Managed image licences (0)
• Stock Photography: Can you sell an image as RF and RM at the same time? (3)