Renting bikes out photo props

[dragnusa]

Does anyone or has anyone thought about renting out some of their bikes as photo shoot props. Why Im asking is I have a few friends that are photographers and Ive thought about renting some of my bikes out to them for photo shoots. If anyone does what do you charge per rental?

 

[Terry66]

I am a photographer. I have a studio here in town and bikes are great props...especially for pinup work. Personally I wouldn't pay for a bike rental, but would offer the owner copies of the prints.

 

[dragnusa]

The reason I put the idea out there was I had one of my friends ask if she could rent one for a shoot and I told her Id just sell her what ever ones she wanted because in the end it would be cheaper. but she said its just easier for her to rent stuff like that instead of having to store it because she never knows when she would use it again. Thinking about telling her $30 and she would get half back when they returned the bike.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I think $15 is very reasonable. I realize she is a friend and I know not every photographer has a huge budget, but I feel like you could charge more than that in the future. Having a refundable deposit makes sense, but I'd think about some sort of contract as well if you plan on doing this a lot. Just something that outlines what they can/can't do with the bike and covers any damage that might result.

 

[Jpromo]

I loaned a bike to an up-and-coming young (22, 23?) photographer friend who specializes in surreal portraiture. I've been a big fan of his work so I was glad to offer a bike up when he asked me about it. His original plan fell through but he was still able to use it. He describes this here as a Post-Apocalyptic fashion shoot.

I'm usually skeptical with photography in the digital age but he really has the kind of imaginative approach and eye that uses the capabilities in a way that doesn't negate the source imagery. If anybody is interested, check out his stuff.
http://www.facebook.com/robwoodcoxphotography

 

[Oak Tree]

So I just talked to a photographer ( my wife) and she replied that she wouldn't pay for a bike rental for a shoot. If the client requested it, she would pass on the rental costs directly back to them.
Bikes do make good props as she has used 2 of mine with very good results, it's just not something she would rent.
That probably doesn't help you though.

 

[CRASH]

My wife is a photographer, and the times she has used a bike in a shoot, the client brought their own. She doesn't take the type of clients where she would need one enough to pay. Sorry, that doesn't really help you.

 

[B607]

I sold this Monark to a professional photographer. I haven't checked back with her to see if she's used it in any shoots. Gary

 

[honestherman]

Wow. I can not believe that a Photographer would not pay for a prop. Naturally they expect some kind of payment for their work though !
If I go to work I am expected to bring my tools and items that I bought with my own money or made at my expense before I can continue to do business.
Photographers are a sore spot to me.
I create and paint my own products. Every time I turn around there is some "Photographer" with a 500.00 plus camera bending over to take a picture of my work. They act as though it is their right to photograph my work and then resell it or reuse it in some form. What has this world come to? Pay for what you take, Pay for what you use. Dont Steal and expect things for free.
Photographers pay for Models, The props are the same.
I am sure there are some photographers who would pay for a prop as they very well should. A bike would be a Model. A friend of mind worked as a Prop setup person in Hollywood. He would always contact us for old cars to be used in movies. We were always paid for use of our cars.(plus expenses).
In my opinion 99.9% of Photographers these days are Petty Thieves. Who steal other peoples property and efforts in one way or another.
They should be arrested for what they do to people,
So as you can see. I vote for YES Classic Bike owners should be paid in one way or another for use of their property or work efforts on the bike and getting it there.
Another thing. What if a very nice bike comes back to the owner scratched up? Kind of like loaning a car to someone and it comes back dented.

Just a rant about being robbed by "photographers"

 

[Walker]

I built a tandem for a florist to use (rent) for weddings as a prop. So far it has attended 3 weddings this summer. I need to chase her down for some photos....

I've also spoken with a relative, on my Wife's side of the family, who is a set director for a bunch of TV shows. He's used a bikes before on occasion, and they pay. I told him to let me know if he needed anything special and I could help him out, either with something of mine or direct him to one of the RRB members if it was more geographically convenient.

 

[Terry66]

In my opinion 99.9% of Photographers these days are Petty Thieves. Who steal other peoples property and efforts in one way or another.
They should be arrested for what they do to people,
Just a rant about being robbed by "photographers"

LOL….As a part time photographer and photographer instructor, I would argue that photographers get robbed way more than they rob. I mean really? You are saying that trading some prints for use of a bike is being a thief? How about when you sell mom a print for $10 and she runs down to WalMart and makes 500 prints at a quarter a pop to pass out to friends and family? How about people borrowing images on the internet without paying? I used to be a pro motorsports photographer and I would see my images on personal websites, team websites, driver’s Facebook pages, etc. How about the Italian motorsports magazine ripping off my images and using them in print and telling me that if I wanted to spend the money to sue them internationally to go right ahead? How about major news organizations like CBS, FOX, NBC asking users to send in pictures of Sandy’s aftermath to use on air with no payment going to the photographer? I did my thesis on digital rights management and how photographers/musicians are totally getting ripped off. Trust me, there is no way anyone could possibly call a professional photographer or muscian a thief in the digital age. :lol:

Seriously, most of studios and photographers who are doing paid gigs do pay for use of props, models, etc. That’s all fine and good. The small beans guys usually work with models (and props) on a TFP (trade/time for prints) or more commonly today TFCD (trade/time for CD). That way the photographer has a model and the model gets images for his/her portfolio. It’s a win/win and nobody is getting rich and no one is getting “robbed”.

I create and paint my own products. Every time I turn around there is some "Photographer" with a 500.00 plus camera bending over to take a picture of my work. They act as though it is their right to photograph my work and then resell it or reuse it in some form. What has this world come to? Pay for what you take, Pay for what you use. Dont Steal and expect things for free.

Obviously, that is copyright violation. Very similar to the lady who contacted me to use my wildlife images to paint from. She was stunned when I asked for payment. Amazing how there are two side to every coin and by the way, I don't think 99.9% of all painters are theives.

 

[honestherman]

Anyone who takes pictures of other persons work with their Camera, Without permission is a Theif, They obviously have an intention to use that unauthorized photograph for their own personal gain.
Pay and get a release or keep their camera away from other persons personal property.
So they should pay for every photo that they take to be fair.
Honesty is the best policy,
Rent out your Bikes and get paid for them. If a person wants a copy or two of their bike ok. Most people want to be paid in some way. Let the owner of the Bike set their own price on what they want. Let the artist set their own price of what they want for a photographer to take pictures of the artists work.

 

[Terry66]

Anyone who takes pictures of other persons work with their Camera, Without permission is a Theif, They obviously have an intention to use that unauthorized photograph for their own personal gain.
Pay and get a release or keep their camera away from other persons personal property.
So they should pay for every photo that they take to be fair.
Honesty is the best policy,
Rent out your Bikes and get paid for them. If a person wants a copy or two of their bike ok. Most people want to be paid in some way. Let the owner of the Bike set their own price on what they want. Let the artist set their own price of what they want for a photographer to take pictures of the artists work.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Taking a picture is not being a thief. Selling the image for profit with a model/property release is being a thief. Simple as that. To say that just because someone is taking a picture they "obviously have an intention to use that unauthorized photograph for their own personal gain" is just paranoid if you ask me. People take pictures for fun, for competition, for profit and a million other reasons. I guess I don't assume the worst from people.

It's like taking a camera to a car show. The cars belong to the owners. Are you saying that everyone taking pictures is doing so because they want to rip off the car owners? I take pictures cause I like the cars!

It's all good man...I just think it's funny to call a photographer a crook when no one gets ripped off more than photographers!

Sorry to the OP for thread-jacking! :wink:

 

[crump582]

I let some kids on my street use mine for some Senior pictures... free of charge though.

 

[CRASH]

Herman, that is possibly the most baseless rant I've ever read. You want my wife arrested because she isn't paying... whoever... for taking photographs.

I'll dial up the police right now and have her removed from my home for the betterment of society. :roll:

 

[B607]

That's why they call it TAKING pictures. Gary

 

[honestherman]

Sorry Guys, I am not talking about a person who takes a picture of a cool car or bike. I am talking about people who take pictures and use the photgraph or part of the photograph for their own person gain (money or fame in one way or another).
Many artists, Inventors, Builders take something from nothing and Create it, Because they are talented. it is their property. They took their own sweat to make this. It is their property to be used as they desire.
A painter is an artist, He creates this picture from many different containers of colored goo. A person with a camera is not an Artist. They Duplicate an item they DO NOT create an item. For example they take a picture of someone elses art work. They cut and paste it into their own photograph. They then use this for personal gain. This could be a 10,000.00 bike in a photo shoot that they have cut and pasted in to the photo. Their other option would be to pay the owner for use of the bike. They choose to take another persons item, their property and use it for their own gain. The sneaky way, The underhanded way. If they dont want to pay then dont use the item for display in their shoot.
Artists sell their pictures. But a Photographer chooses to take a picture and Duplicate the Artists picture and not pay him for it. Then the Photographer says it is his work and wants to be paid for it.
If you are selling an item that you built, created or bought with your money, would you want someone else using it in some way to make themselves money? Be Honest!
My statement is that Photographers should pay and get releases from people. They want to Duplicate other peoples property for their own gain. Most do not even ask the owner if they can take a pictures, WTF? But they do not.
Pay for the use of the bike as a Prop.

 

[Terry66]

Sorry Guys, I am not talking about a person who takes a picture of a cool car or bike. I am talking about people who take pictures and use the photgraph or part of the photograph for their own person gain (money or fame in one way or another).
Many artists, Inventors, Builders take something from nothing and Create it, Because they are talented. it is their property. They took their own sweat to make this. It is their property to be used as they desire.
A painter is an artist, He creates this picture from many different containers of colored goo. A person with a camera is not an Artist. They Duplicate an item they DO NOT create an item. For example they take a picture of someone elses art work. They cut and paste it into their own photograph. They then use this for personal gain. This could be a 10,000.00 bike in a photo shoot that they have cut and pasted in to the photo. Their other option would be to pay the owner for use of the bike. They choose to take another persons item, their property and use it for their own gain. The sneaky way, The underhanded way. If they dont want to pay then dont use the item for display in their shoot.
Artists sell their pictures. But a Photographer chooses to take a picture and Duplicate the Artists picture and not pay him for it. Then the Photographer says it is his work and wants to be paid for it.
If you are selling an item that you built, created or bought with your money, would you want someone else using it in some way to make themselves money? Be Honest!
My statement is that Photographers should pay and get releases from people. They want to Duplicate other peoples property for their own gain. Most do not even ask the owner if they can take a pictures, ***? But they do not.
Pay for the use of the bike as a Prop.

LOL....Dang, you've got it all figured out. :roll:

 

[expjawa]

Herman, I think you'd have a hard time convincing a lot of people that photographers aren't artists. Anyone can take a photo, sure, just like anyone can splash some paint around. That may or may not make them artists. But just like the painter artist you describe, the photographer (or at least good ones, which also applies to the painter) has talent, skill with technical jiggery pokery of getting the shot right, and the vision to see what the photo can be before they take it. That's not something the average shmoe has. A painter captures what they see with paint. If they're painting a landscape, a portrait or a still life, they're still reproducing something that exists, potentially even owned by someone else. How's that different from a photographer doing the same thing, except with a different piece of equipment? Saying one is an artist and the other is a thief is particularly narrow minded, not to mention unjust.

To be fair, I make no claims to be either of these types of people, so don't get the idea I'm defending what I do or anything (although I do know artists and photographers). I'm an engineer, so I have no stake in this, save for recognizing that some folks that skills I don't, and I give them credit for that. By the same token, though, I do agree that if someone is intending to make a profit off of artwork that reproduces someone else's property, the right thing to do is to at least have permission to reproduce the property. I mean, that touches on the very core of intellectual properties, copyrights, etc. You have to protect the system as a whole.

 

[yoothgeye]

“A group of artists are invited for dinner by a famous chef.
In greeting the photographer, the chef comments:
I love your photos, they’re wonderful, you must have a very expensive camera.The photographer doesn’t reply and walks into the dining room.

After dinner the photographer approaches the chef and says:
Dinner was sensational, very exquisite flavors, a true work of art,
you must have a very sophisticated stove.”