| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Your Logo on Photos
Mitch Stringer, Photographer
 |
Baltimore | MD | USA | Posted: 5:05 PM on 09.23.09 |
| ->> When distributing prints of your images do you have your logo with or without website on the front of the image? The back? at all? Do you use a permanent ink stamp, use a resource from your own or online lab to apply the logo to the back of the photo? Use application of your logo as a Photoshop action to easily add it to the front corner botttom of the image? Have you had any negative feedback to having your logo on the front of the image? I have done all including adding a simple, "Photo by... and Copyright info with year. All feedback appreciated. |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 5:27 PM on 09.23.09 |
| ->> Copyright statement and webpage backprinted by lab |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 9:12 PM on 09.23.09 |
| ->> It depends on "distributing". Are we talking freebie / promos to hang in an AD's office or a clubhouse? Then yes I stamp (PS) a logo somewhere where it will be seen. On the other hand for prints SOLD to clients the (C)date owner_name is back printed by the lab. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 10:38 PM on 09.23.09 |
->> Mitch, what type of prints are we talking about here ?
If I had you shoot my wedding or a senior portrait for me and you put "Photo by ....and Copyright info with year" on the front of my images I'd be rather upset to say the least.
I frankly wouldn't accept any sort of name or even a logo on the front of any print I'm buying as a consumer. I know plenty of photogs do it but I think its darn tacky and shows little respect for the customer. If someone is already paying you good money for your work there is no need for a logo. Its not as if someones living room is a high traffic area.
I've just never really understood the double standard a lot of photographers have. They'll stamp their name or studio name in gold foil across the bottom front of a print for a senior portrait but then won't do it for a corporate client. No doubt because they know little Bobby's parents who just paid $600 for a session won't complain but try the same stamp on a CEO's head shot for the annual report and see what happens lol. |
|
Philip Johnson, Photographer
|
Garland | TX | USA | Posted: 11:25 AM on 09.24.09 |
->> Jeff,
Don't you think it is because little Bobby's parents are more likely to take the 5x7 print that they bought into Walgreens and try to make 50 copies to share. If the studio name is on the print the person making the prints is more likely to question whether they should or not. I would imaging shooting for a corporate client probably understands the copyright that they have agreed too better.
I've seen Olan Mills with just there name on the print. It all about protecting sales. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 12:09 PM on 09.24.09 |
->> Well Philip, that is a valid point, but, I think it is more so that a corporate client would never accept something as tacky as a photographers name stamped on the front of it. That would just be totally unacceptable in a annual report etc.
Its the same as if you added your name or logo to any images you submitted to a wire service. It would never fly.
I've had freelancers for my paper actually submit images with their logos on the bottom corner and there was no way I was running those images. They get their cut line credit but thats it.
I personally think the copy protection issue is sort of a symptom of what I consider a bad business model in this day and age as well.
Make your money off the photographic services you provide the client. I charge people for my time, equipment and creative vision. That is what they are paying me for. I'm not in the business of being a print maker and hoping to make money on the back end from absurd markups on prints.
In fact I provide clients with a DVD of all the images and they can make all the copies they want. I make sure I'm paid accordingly upfront for the photographic service and the DVD.
Its just less hassle for me as I don't have to worry about copying images, getting print request 4 months down the road and digging up old files etc. Better for the client as well as they can print them, email them etc. Makes them feel they got a better value.
I used to do print sales and frankly did get screwed by people ordering a 4x6 to scan it into a 8x10 etc. Self serve kiosk make it all too easy, as do home scanners, photoshop etc. Its fighting a losing battle.
I realized that selling the images file alone for a fair price is the better solution. It cost the same if they want a 4x6, or a 20x30, or 100 4x6 copies and I'm not dealing with any of that, no drop shipping hassle or anything.
At the end of the day to each his own though. Its a personal pet peeve of mine to see a name on a print and I'd personally never do it nor use the services of someone who did. Thats just me though and there are surely plenty of consumers that don't mind and plenty of successful photographers who do it and its not hurting business.
For what its worth I also removed the dealer logo from the deck lid of my car.
My name isn't "Fred Ricart" so why would I want "Fred Ricart" in 2" tall chrome letters on the deck lid ?
Same way I see a photograph. If my daughter isn't named Olan Mills (though I guess if I had a daughter and wanted to name her Olan it would work lol) why would I want a photo of her to say Olan Mills on the bottom. Doesn't make sense to me |
|
Mitch Stringer, Photographer
|
Baltimore | MD | USA | Posted: 12:52 PM on 09.24.09 |
| ->> Great feedback. It sounds like there are a few scenarios emerging. If giving a print away free for whatever the reason, your logo is probably accepted and creates an ongoing promotional message to everyone who sees the photo hanging or shown to others by the recipient. If it has been sold to the client there is something of a gray area. If a corporate sale, the logo on the front is not really acceptable practice. If to the parents of a Little Leaguer, it's hit or miss whether the logo goes on. Of course adding a small logo serves promotional purposes and serves as a reminder should the family decide after the fact to order more prints. Is it as simple as if the client pays enough, no logo because you have a valid contract discussing usage and they paid a full fee. If given away for free, the recipiet simply understands that having your logo on the image front is acceptable? |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|