MarketingProfs' Members Register for B2B Forum 2010 for just $695! (good until 11/30) »

Ask your question ... sign up today! It's FREE!
Advertising/PR     
 
This question has been closed, and points have been awarded.
How Much Should A Photographer Receive For His/her Work?
Posted By: Jett* on 8/5/2004 7:26 PM (CST) 250 Points
We are hiring a professional photographer to take some unique pictures for our ads, website, articles, etc.

Model selection, location, creative design/format, emotion, etc are being arranged, paid, and organized by US. The photographer wants us to pay for film and processing fees. Sounds reasonable. Right?

Well, that's not all they want. They are insisting on exclusive copyright to all photos and are only willing to allow us a one-time usage PROVIDED we list the photographer's name, studio, and website next to every photo on all materials. For any additional usage, they are requesting us to pay a license/usage fee.

Again, we are hiring the models, selecting wardrobe, location, props, etc and instructing the photographer what we want.

Now, our stance is if the photographer wants the copyright, they need to pay for all the expenses.

What do you all think? Have any of you had to deal with this?

Posted by: Phil* Accepted Answer
8/5/2004 7:41 PM (CST)
Hiya Jett,
Having been a London fashion photographer at one point in my life, I have to say that the photographer is really stretching all realistic and buisness boundaries on this one.
I would choose one of two options here...find another photographer who, being paid for the work, agrees that you are paying for ownership and usage and that he is a contracted supplier. The second option is as you have suggested...he pays for everything on spec and you pay him for a pre-agreed one time use (or more if you need to). I would personally steer clear of this second option as any repeat use of an image could end up costing you a lot and if it is part of a successful campaign, additional usage would be more than likely.
Just think about using an advertising agency creative team, see if you can dig up a contract because once you pay the bill, you accept the IP of what they have done...you OWN the creative outputs. Photography is very close to being construed as creative so the same contractual agreements should stand.

Hope this helps and good luck
:)
Phil
 
Posted by: mbarber Accepted Answer
8/5/2004 7:59 PM (CST)
Blaine, dump your photographer.

If they want you to pay for everything, you OWN everything they do. It sounds like this person has experience in the wedding photography field where photographers traditionally rip their customers blind by retaining 'ownership' of anything they do.

My question to the few we chatted to was 'well what exactly are we paying you for - pushing a button and turning a lens?'

If this person wants to retain ownership, they pay for eveything and then you pay for a license usage. BUT you need to consider the purpose of the photography.

Ad agencies DO NOT retain ownership of whole media campaigns or TV commercials so why the heck should a photographer get to own stuff you are giving them the chance to be involved with?

You will find HUNDREDS of good quality photographers willing to do the work as a contract for professional services. That means their fee does include film, site lighting, travel if required etc but YOU own the output.

Given the approach by this photographer I also wouldn't use them even IF they agree to a one off fee. Find someone else.
 
Posted by: NuCoPro Accepted Answer
8/5/2004 8:02 PM (CST)
Time to get a new photog. You need one who understands working in the commercial arena. Sounds like you hooked up with an artiste!
 
Posted by: Pepper Blue Accepted Answer
8/5/2004 8:09 PM (CST)
Dump him.

I used to work with commercial photographers all the time.

Standard practice was we paid for the transparencies, we owned them.

All they required was that if we published our work/photo in a commercial publication that they received credit for it.

Other than that I was free to make color copies, post to our website (no credit, but I would give it anyway) pretty much anything I wanted to do.

That guy is crazy, how did he ever get clients with demands like that?



 
Posted by: Inbox_Interactive Accepted Answer
8/5/2004 8:11 PM (CST)
Just adding my two cents here and confiming what others have told you. Yes, there are photographers who play the copyright game, and yes, this is primarily how it works in the wedding and baby photo business (not the ones at Sears, but really high-end stuff).

Having said that, you're kidding yourself if you think (not that you do, but one of the replies said this), that taking professional photographs is as simple as pushing a button and turning a lens. That's like saying, "Why am I paying you $10,000 to write this copy for my direct-mail package? You're just typing words on your computer, aren't you?"

Getting back on track, make sure that whoever you hire understands that this is a work-for-hire deal through which you will maintain 100% ownership and copyright.

We recently needed a product photographer for a client and we actually found someone very good and very fast but still very cheap on guru.com, but your mileage may vary.
 
Posted by: Carl Crawford Accepted Answer
8/5/2004 8:29 PM (CST)
hi jett,

DUMP HIS SORRY A**,

get a new photographer

Sweetasman01
 
Posted by: mbarber Accepted Answer
8/5/2004 8:43 PM (CST)
Blaine I know you know that I don't think (as Paul might have thought) that turning a lens and pushing a button was all there is to it. If I did I wouldn't have been interviewing people to take our wedding photos now would I? The negotiation took place in the question but that's just a way of looking at the world through a different lens :-)

Ditch him/her.
 
Posted by: Doug I* Accepted Answer
8/5/2004 10:32 PM (CST)
I'm going to suggest ....... discontinue with his services.

He is a sub-contractor and that's all. He is contracted to provide his technical skills in turning the lens and pushing the button - and that's it. Those are very important skills but in this case that is all he is being paid to provide.

He is going beyond the scope of his contract to supply services in requesting ownership of the photos
 
Posted by: thinkmor Accepted Answer
8/6/2004 4:39 AM (CST)
Hi Blaine

My experience is the same as Pepper Blue. Did you find the photograher through an agency or is it a contact?

If you commission photographers through an agent or stock company like Getty then you have to exactly specify usage e.g. poster, billboard, brochure, website etc and the have fees for each and for length of use.

But, if you really like the photographers style and your client is set on them too, you may be able to negotiate:

Negotiate a fixed fee instead - alternatively - Split costs down the middle and lower the fixed fee

Client takes sole rights in US but will pay fixed fee for outside the US and agrees to only use for negotiated media.

Offer a small fixed fee for wesbite usage (if they use it)

If you are building relationships, you can suggest, if you use their services for another project again, you get pro rata discounts. Really depends who is negotiating.

We have had occasions when clients wanted to stick to the photographer, or was a friend etc so we had to diplomatically arrange usage rights - even though the client didn't want to pay!

You're lucky it's only the photographer, we had a lot of trouble with models -a 19 year old model thought $15,000 a day wasn't enough - but that's another story!

Thinkmor™
 
Posted by: aosterday* Accepted Answer
8/6/2004 11:02 AM (CST)
Hi Blaine.

I agree that the photographer is asking a bit too much. Understand that with desktop publishing so prevalent nowdays, traditional photographers are losing business, and trying to make up ground by overcharging. Nevertheless, hi/her conditions are ridiculous. You should at least be able to use the images infinetely.

I would shop around. If you are paying for everything, the final product should be yours to keep.

Take it easy!
 
Posted by: Jett* Author Response
8/6/2004 1:11 PM (CST)
Thanks Everyone!

I get the picture.
 
Posted by: curtleimbach* Member Response
3/5/2005 11:17 AM (CST)
The topic is closed but this may enlighten future readers.

I am a photographer by trade and I might be able to offer an alternative perspective.

First a note about photo credit:

For commercial use (work commissioned for catalogs and advertising) no credit line is necessary or expected. The value of the artwork to the client may be depreciated when the ad is saturated with credits for photographer, model, stylists, ad absurdum. Whose ad is this anyway? Commercial rates are higher partially because commercial clients are paying extra to enjoy the privelege of clean, uncluttered art.

Editorial use (work commissioned by magazines) usually pays much less than commercial use. Here a credit line gives a nice ego boost which helps offset the low financial reward.


On pricing photography:

Some projects are time intensive and others are film/material intensive. My estimates show seperate time and film charges to compensate for both possibilities. But this is for ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLY. I have to use this estimating method to set a base price which will meet my own business expenses and keep the lights on.

But the key concept to get here is that what is really being sold is not "time" and "materials" but PERMISSION TO USE THE ARTWORK.

A modest price will result in limited time to use the art and the photographer will have the right to IMMEDIATELY license the image as stock. This could be a problem for your client if the image used in their ad is licensed as stock by their competitors.... Imagine two actresses wearing the same dress on Oscar night!


A higher price will result in a longer and broader usage right. (For example the right will be expanded to other mediums, mutiple ads, additional future printings.) The photographer will grant exclusive use and not sell the image to any other customers during the period of exclusive use. The photographer still owns the copyright and may sell the image entirely or license its use to others once the exclusive use period has ended.


The most expensive option is to own the image outright. If you want to absolutely own the image, including the right to license and resell it to others, you will pay top dollar. Some large corporations feel that it is absolutely necessary to control all possible future uses of every image and have no qualms about paying the premium rate.

So you need to decide what is in your client's best interest. Most small businesses do not intend to use a photo world wide and are not threatened by the thought of their photo being used by others at some future time. In fact are happier with the lowered price.

In your case I would propose the following mix of rights as a good starting point:
Client will have two years exclusive use of the images.
Client usage will be unlimited with respect to geography, medium, number of reprints. This means the client can use it as many times as they like, in any form, in any country. That is a lot of potential use!
The ad agency will not use the images for any other Client.
Photographer will not sell or license photo to anyone else during this usage period.
Photographer will have the right to include the photo and any ads containing the photo in his personal or online portfolio for self-promotion purposes.
Photographer retains copyright and may publish, license, or sell images after the two year license has expired.

This agreement works for just about everyone. The client has access to the image and is secure that nobody else will use the image at the same time. In the unlikely event that the image is so good that the client wants to use it again after two years, then they will still have access because they can license it for another time period. (I say unlikely because how many ad campaigns can you remember that used the same photo for more than two years?) The clients cost is lower than for an outright buyout of the image. The photographer has received a fairly large fee for this broad usage. He has more than covered all the costs in producing the image and if the image is very good, may look forward to future stock sales. The intense ego attachment to the photographer's photo is not threatened. Most importantly for the ad agency, the agreement is simple and the usage rights are uncomplicated; the agency does not have to worry about "gotcha" lawsuits because the image was published too many times or in the wrong city. The only data to keep track of is the time limit.

Finally I recommend the ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) website
www.ASMP.org
for a more detailed discussion of usage rights.
 
Posted by: chuckstjohn* Member Response
7/28/2005 4:34 PM (CST)
I agree with curtleimbach. I've been a commercial shooter for nearly 25 years and most of the responses to the initial inquiry are about as off base as can be.

Certainly everything is negotiable however the Federal Copyright Act only allows for passage if ownership (copyright) in writing. When the photographer clicks the shutter, without an agreement to the contrary, the client does NOT own the photo. The photographer does. What most of us do is to license specific or stated useage for a fee. The individual that wrote that the phtographer is "... is contracted to provide his technical skills in turning the lens and pushing the button - and that's it." is surely not someone I'd ever want to work with. That is a disasterously unenlighted view of what we do.

A photographers fee is excusive of expenses and that is standard in the business and is known by all sophisticated art buyers of commercial photography. There was a suggestion that all expenses be included in an estimate and although those situations are out there, it's dangerous for any artist to acquiesce to that requirement lest you get burned in the proverbial shorts.

If you have a client that wants ownership in perpetuity (and I've had those), a skilled negotiator can make an agreement where the client gets what they want and the photographer commands a higher fee for loss of ownership and therefore future licensing opportunities.

To suggest that the photographer in question be thrown out, is neither desired nor warranted. I am sure there is more to this and I'd love to hear the photographers version.
 


Get more answers ... ReTweet this!

Would you like to post a response?
Welcome to Know-How Exchange!
This is a collaborative community. We welcome everyone's participation.
All you need to do is login. Enter your account info in the box above (top right).
Not a member? Not a problem. Register here (it's FREE and EASY).




Know-How Exchange powered by MarketingProfs


Sponsored Links

Buy a Link Now

Just Released ... Download Today!
Just Released ... Download Today!
Look inside
Included with Premium Membership
User Name:
Password:
Remember Me
Forgot your password?

Top 25 KHE Experts
(Advertising/PR)
Jay Hamilton-Roth (43473)
W.M.M.A. (31505)
mgoodman (25971)
CarolBlaha (19996)
michael (17966)
thinkmor (11658)
PhilGrisolia=Results (11575)
darcy.moen (10787)
stevea (10362)
NuCoPro (9474)
Peter (henna gaijin) (9467)
telemoxie (8723)
mbarber (8199)
Mushfique Manzoor (7932)
Puru Gupta (6790)
SteveByrneBranding (6482)
Gary Bloomer (6295)
SRyan ;] (5966)
shghosh (5797)
Deremiah *CPE (5479)
Pepper Blue (5368)
ASVP/ChrisB (5176)
Tracey (5120)
Mikee (4878)
amandavega (4775)
Recently Posted Marketing Jobs
Director of Marketing and Communications
Demand Generation Manager
Marketing/Advertising Faculty
Director of Marketing
Market Analyst
Sr. Field Marketing Manager - Business Intell.
Associate Vice President of Marketing and Corporat
Marketing Manager
[more jobs]

Join over 355,000 members ... SIGN UP!

My email address is and I'd like my password to be .

Already a member? Sign In!

My email address is , and my password is .


HACKER SAFE certified sites prevent over 99.9% of hacker crime.