Re: [APML] S&T's New Publishing Agreement

[Matt BenDaniel <matt@starmatt.com>]

Kent,

Back in the golden age of the 70's and 80's, big money could be made by the top astrophotographers (Malin). NASA went to the moon. There were no HST images in the public domain. There were no royalty-free CDs. There was no digital image processing. There was a small number of astrophotographers producing high quality work.

In the new millenium that's all changed. And not just for astrophotographers. The stock photography agency world has been consolidated and the pie is smaller overall. I think the only way to make money as a photographger these days is weddings and porn.

Today the cost of the best quality astrophotography systems (including CCD) is very high. The people who can afford that do not need the money from selling pictures, so they give it away. Even the not-so-rich folks want recognition, so much so, that they give away their work freely or cheaply.

In this environment, we do not have much leg to stand on. Believe me, I am as sorry as anyone about the current state of affairs.

Just my $0.02.

Matt

At 12:53 PM 5/24/2002, KGKIRKLEY@aol.com wrote:

>In a message dated 5/24/02 6:02:56 AM, bobm@koyote.com writes:
>
><< 
>
>> From: "Mike Cook, AF9Y" <mwcook@concentric.net>
>
>Hi Mike,
>
>
>> I received a new publishing agreement from S&T that ask for signature
>
>> agreement of the following (key points summarized):
>
>> 1) Grants of Rights - S&T can use it anywhere.
>
>
>$50 is decent pay for one time use. It's not decent for full rights. 
>
>
>> 5) Settlement - S&T pays according to an attachment.  (looks like
>
>>      $50 gift certificate is norm)
>
>
>A gift certificate doesn't please me. Cash would. 
>
>Those are my thoughts.
>
>Bobby Middleton >>
>
>Sorry Bobby but I have to disagree somewhat.
>
>It is now the 21st. Century, not 1960 or 1975 or 1995.................$50 for 
>even a one time use is rediculous. Fifty dollars doesn't even buy a nice 
>dinner for two or fill up the tank on a Suburban.
>
>Recently, many publishers have come out with terrible publishing agreements.
>They actually want to pay less, in some cases, than they did 25 years ago.
>The publishers want to control the images so they can use them in secondary 
>markets like the internet, CD's, etc. and, actually, a lot of money is at 
>stake.
>Regular photographers are fighting these all over the country.
>
>Kent Kirkley

--
Matt BenDaniel
matt@starmatt.com
http://starmatt.com


--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>