As I have been many times before, I was recently approached by a publication interested in several of my National Parks images. From the get go, I gathered that this publication had no interest in paying for my images, as the first email stipulated “All of the photos we use in the magazine will be credited to you, resulting in free advertising for your company”

I responded politely, thanking them for their interest in my work and asking them to forward a rate sheet and I would consider putting together a submission for them. I received a reply with a media kit that outlined their publication along with their advertising rates. Nowhere did I see any compensation rates for imagery.

After another email asking about their rates for imagery, I received this note. “I talked with my editor and we do not pay for photography or do license fees. We will use your photos in the magazine and in the online version, providing you with free advertising for your company. We will provide all of your contact information etc. as well.”

Below is my response. Short and sweet: VALUE YOUR WORK. Do not give it away for free. “Exposure” and “free advertising” very rarely add up to money in your bank account, and they certainly won’t garner you anything but regret and disdain for those that were cunning enough to take advantage of your optimistic and hopeful approach.

“Hi X–
Thanks for the info.

I don’t want to shoot the messenger here, so please feel free to pass my thoughts along to your editor/publisher.

X magazine appears to be a professional publication. At least, the media kit, circulation, statistics and other credentials listed would have one believe so. I think it looks like a nice pub, and I’m sure it has significant reach within the X community. My question is this: how can this publication justify charging $1,500.00 per full page of advertising yet not be willing to pay one red cent for quality imagery? It is simply an unethical, and unjust way to do business.

I am a professional photographer. I’m not a hobbyist, and I do have a bottom line. This means I make 100% of my living off of what I bring in from licensing my imagery (stock) or from hired work for commercial and/or editorial outlets. While I appreciate the sentiment of offering “free” advertising, in the end, it simply doesn’t add up. Time (which is worth a substantial amount), money and personal and professional commitment were expended in capturing all of my imagery. Add in the expenses I accumulate from maintaining a professional standard with my equipment, and in the end–I am essentially paying X Magazine to have my images published. And that just doesn’t equate.

Without quality content, this publication would have no audience. Without an audience, this publication would have no advertisers. And without advertisers, you, and everyone else that works for this magazine would be out of a job. How would you feel if you approached an advertiser and they said to you, “we can’t pay for an advertisement, but we’d be happy to hand out copies of your publication to our clients once you let us advertise for free. You’ll get great exposure”. I imagine your publisher would decline in a heartbeat, and yet–this is essentially what you are asking of those that make it possible for this publication to even exist.

I hope that at one point, your publisher can commit to a business model that is respectful to, and respectable of, all those that contribute to the magazine. Were I to accept this offer, and operate my business accordingly, I would effectively be putting myself out of business in a matter of months. I can’t imagine this publication won’t discover the same fate if some commitment isn’t made to compensate fairly for quality content.

Again, this isn’t meant as a personal attack on you. It needs to be heard by the decision makers, so I would appreciate you passing it along.

Thanks X, and please, if you do ever happen to establish a budget for imagery, please feel free to contact me in the future. Cheers.”