EvKar Loc: Middle of the Good Old USA

I'm not a professional photographer... but I feel I take some good pictures.
The situation that I find myself in is... I run a network cabling company and lately I have been taking pictures of our customer's project sites, with the idea of posting on our Facebook page for marketing purposes. Along with the photos, I'll thank the customer for their business and tag their Facebook page, as well. Trying to let the public know about our services. Before I post the pictures, I submit them to the customer and ask for approval to post. I do this out of respect to the customer's comfort level regarding the social media exposure.
So far, the customers are excited about it, and approval isn't a problem... and I've been told by many of the customers that they are great pictures.
Well, now I have a customer (bank) that likes my pictures (5) and would like a copy of them. I posted them on an On-line sharing format, and made them Non-downloadable and with low resolution... and I also have a watermark on them. Of course I'm flattered, but it bothered me when their marketing personnel wanted to know if I could remove the vignetting effect.
Now the questions... since they are a longtime customer, do I tweak my processing and hand over the pictures in a higher resolution? Do I do this and keep my watermark on or remove it? Or do I do all the post processing only if they are willing to pay for the pictures... and then what does a person charge? I would like the exposure, and think that in the future, photography could be a hobby that could pay for itself. So do I insist that the watermark stays on, unless they are willing to buy my photos.
Your thoughts?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Offer them the opportunity to license the use of the photos for a specific length of time. The agreement can be renewed. You retain ownership that way and they pay for the license.
--Bob

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The images were taken for your purposes. As a basic 'goodwill basis', reworking and 'giving' them to the other organization is one option. Operating as a for-profit business, you should define a price, even nominal, for your time and effort to create work for another for-profit business. I wouldn't get complicated with time-limits nor usage limits nor expense, a simple 'hundred bucks and I'll send them to you' establishes a price and basis for discussion.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I would suggest you get a signed property release from the customers, before posting the images of their project sites on your web page as self-promotion. Any people in the image should sign a model release (anyone under 18 years old needs to have it signed by a parent or guardian).

For more info and samples of standardized releases check out https://www.asmp.org/property-model-releases/

It's impossible to answer your question about pricing without knowing exactly what the bank intends to do with the five images they wish to purchase.

Actually, don't "sell" them your pictures. That implies ownership and you should never surrender your copyright for any reason (other than a very, very large pile of money!)

You should "license usage" of your images to them. There are all sorts of ways that can be arranged, but it entirely depends upon how the photos will be used. For example, if they just want to use them in a small brochure and only a couple hundred copies will be printed, that would call for a very different price scheme than if they wanted to use the images in an international advertising campaign.

So go back to them and find out more about how they plan to use the images. When you do image licensing it needs to be very specific and spell out a lot of terms, such as that the licensing is non-transferrable (you don't want a licensee turning around and re-licensing your images to other people without your knowledge and involvement).

Once you know more, let us know.

It might even be a matter where you charge nothing for fairly minor use, since they are a customer of yours. Even so, a written licensing agreement is essential, spelling out how they can use the images.

I haven't searched online, but I bet you can find examples of image licensing agreements and terminology somewhere online (the above site may have some, though it may be behind a firewall... I am pretty sure they publish a book about the subject, so it's not free info like the sample model releases).

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

LOL... it is your customers who are being too generous. If my company I would only give you permission to use the photos for YOUR benefit if I got a set of them to use for MY benefit. That seems a much more equitable solution.

distill Loc: Huthwaite, Nottinghamshire UK

The bank may be one of your customers but they will try to charge you for every service if you were their customer, term generally used is "Rob you blind" so charge them as much as you can

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

This is why I shoot only for myself. I wish you luck with a good solution.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Wasabi

Chg Canon has the right idea, keep it simple.

If you are looking to make a few sales in the future, offer the files free in exchange for letting you hang a few of your better shots in the bank lobby (lots of foot traffic to view them) each month. You do all the installation and renewal work.

ronichas Loc: Long Island

[/quote] So do I insist that the watermark stays on, unless they are willing to buy my photos.
Your thoughts?[/quote]

This is a pet peeve for me. When people give away their images, they lessen the value of a photographer. We spend a lot of money on equipment. We spend time learning about equipment & photography, learning about processing, learning our craft.
Do the people in the bank work for free? Absolutely not.

I believe it is best to charge something for your time, your work, your expenses.

All the professional photographers that used to make money selling photos are now doing workshops. Everyone with a camera thinks they are a photographer!

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

"...I'm not a professional photographer..." EvKar photography is typically not considered a "Profession" unless you are working as a clinician in radiology... And they don't charge by the image, only by contract fee. Please keep in mind there are no academic credentials or licensing barriers to entry into commercial photography. Also the instant you decide to become a "Commercial" photographer you will need commercial liability insurance. a.k.a. I can not obtain a "permit" to shoot in public or private space without this. And if you have a homeowner policy they will not cover you for commercial work.

The myth of photographers being "Professionals" has been created by marketing hype from vendors of photographic equipment. Example: Nikon considers a photographer to merit it's coveted "Professional Photographer" moniker only if they have purchase a sizable number of Nikon's high end bodies and optics... Even then they use to require that one generate over 50% of their revenue from photographic services. Now in their latest efforts it's a for fee bases, hard times for Nikon...

As others have mentioned "Commercial" photographers license their imagery... I assist many ASMP photographers and virtually all work by contract NOT by spec. i.e. selling individual images.

Please allow me to cut to the chase so to speak. You're not there yet... albeit you've tasted the sweet fruit of marketing on Facebook... At this juncture I would suggest you search out all the commercial photographers with a Facebook presence in your market. Learn from them... THEY are your competition. Once you have a Facebook presence with a quality portfolio then post your pricing parameters in the genre(s) you feel are your forte.

At this point pricing will be the least of your worries... generating a client base will consume virtually all your time/effort. As oft said... Commercial Photography is 90% marketing and only 10% photography.

My very best wishing on your journey into commercial photography EvKar

Jack47 Loc: Ontario

Your customers (of the cabling company) gave you permission to use the prints, but did they give you permission to sell them. You might have to go back to them to get a full release.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

So do I insist that the watermark stays on, unless they are willing to buy my photos.
Your thoughts?[/quote]

This is a pet peeve for me. When people give away their images, they lessen the value of a photographer. We spend a lot of money on equipment. We spend time learning about equipment & photography, learning about processing, learning our craft.
Do the people in the bank work for free? Absolutely not.

I believe it is best to charge something for your time, your work, your expenses.

All the professional photographers that used to make money selling photos are now doing workshops. Everyone with a camera thinks they are a photographer![/quote]

Good cartoon.

EvKar Loc: Middle of the Good Old USA

Everyone, thanks for your responses. Thanks for your assistance, I gleaned a little insight from each of your replies. It is great to a have a source that is experienced.
What I'm not hearing is ... as I'm not going to charge the bank for the pictures, do I keep a watermark on them; for exposure, should further endeavors present themselves? Also to show ownership. Only remove the watermark if money changes hand... and yes, should that happen, there will be a need for releases to be generated and signed.
Let me know if you have any further thoughts... and again thanks.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

They asked you to remove the watermarks and make some other changes. Don't be annoying and ignore their requests. Either sell (or give) them what was asked, or tell them 'no'.