PurpleLama@AOL.COM on sat 12 jan 02
work for free)
David -
You are right on the money. It's an eye opener when you analyzed what the
additional cost would be to pay the potters $25/picture. I would be willing
to tack on a few more cents per book for the additional admin that PAYING the
potters would cost the publisher. Furthermore, I suggest that we boycott
publishers that do NOT pay the potters. (OK, so I'm a child of the
60's/70's).
Photography is one of my passions. Years ago, I did a series on mothers and
daughters. Some of the pictures were used to illustrate child raising books
for an obscure nonprofit group (one not rolling in $$$). They paid me for my
pictures. The rate depended upon whether the photos were b&W or color. One of
my photos was used for the cover of a book and I received more for that.
I say we stand up and support each other. This seems like a noble cause.
Shula
in sunny Redondo Beach, CA
stepping off of her soap box!
<< Artists who grant permission to publish their materials should
get more than a chance to buy a book at a reduced price. They
should be paid. I'm sure the publishers pay their printers, paper companies,
designers, editorial staffs, secretaries, truck drivers, shipping clerks,
landlords, utility companies, local taxing authorities, and so on.
Yet they don't feel the need to pay the people who provide them
with the only real product that will motivate people to buy a book
so they can pay the secretaries, clerks, etc.
This is a pretty amazing situation. . .
It wouldn't take much to pay for such material. Let's take the "500
What Will People Pay To See" series, since, at 500 photos, it has
more photos than most books.
Let's pay $25 for each photo used. This is the rate that Ceramics
Monthly pays for use of a photo in the magazine.
$25 times 500 photos equals $12,500, divided by 10,000 copies of
the book, equals $1.25.
It would only cost $1.25 per book to pay the artists for their work!
If the book went into a second printing it would not cost any more!
$1.25 wholesale increases to $2.50 retail. Pretty insignificant.
So the book sells for $32.50 instead of $29.95, hardly enough to
deter interested buyers.
In fact, the book would end up being better because it would
include submissions from artists who, while they like to show
off their work, refuse to give it away.
>>
Marie Gibbons on sun 13 jan 02
work fo...
> > Photography is one of my passions. Years ago, I did a series on mothers
> and
> > daughters. Some of the pictures were used to illustrate child raising
> books
> > for an obscure nonprofit group (one not rolling in $$$). They paid me for
> my
> > pictures. The rate depended upon whether the photos were b&W or color. One
> of
> > my photos was used for the cover of a book and I received more for that.
>
If we wanted to apply the same logic here to slides of our work being
published and us being paid for providing the slide... then, shouldn't the
photograher pay the models a fee as well, as they were initially paid to do
the photo shoot, and now they will be in the homes of many many others, so
shouldn't they get a royalty fee or something???
See, this can just wind and wind... I truly think that we need to look at the
benefits that we receive from having images of ours included in publications.
If pay is one of those benefits all the better, if not, look at the exposure,
the preceived professionalism we gain from others who are impressed at our
professional status in the community of our art....
I prefer to see all glasses as half full!
Marie Gibbons
www.oooladies.com
| |
|
