when to require/expect payment

<p>Just a quick question!<br>

I had a birthday photoshoot this past Saturday and I delivered over 30 photos online in 2560x1600 resolution to the client with watermarks. This client is a close friend of my family. I normally would give them a lower 150x150 watermarked version. I also suggested that I have a DVD for them to pick up that includes over 400 photos from the birthday party. I haven't received a reply in over 5 days now.<br>

We talked about the price prior to the party. I'm sure people are busy and so am I. I'm not really worried that they won't pay me. I'm more worried about when. In the same way that whenever a friend asks to "borrow" some money, it takes them months to pay back the price in full. Plus they aren't paying interest. <br>

How do you approach your photography business? Do you ask the client prior to shooting to pay the price upfront? The reason I don't do it this way is because whenever I go to a restaurant, you always pay after the dinner. The difference is that its kind of hard to leave a restaurant without paying because you can easily be spotted. But it is easy to kind of ignore a photographer from a distance. <br>

How aggressive/persistent should I be when asking for payment? Is this something I should ask before, during or after the shoot? </p>

<p>Fast food - definitely for payment, but Italian restaurant for quality... </p>

<p>Payment is due before ANY images are delivered - that includes proofs or online proofs. </p>

<p>One time I did not get cleared payment before the images were delivered and I still regret it to this day. (and they still owe me... yes, I have gone to court and have a judgement.) </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>neither?</p>

<p>Italian. I never ask my clients for money up front, but the amounts I charge are much less than a typical wedding photographer.<br>

I expect to be paid when I deliver the files, typically by FTP or email so we can avoid sales taxes. I have never had a client not pay immediately. But again, I'm not doing weddings, portraits, events, or even pets ;-)</p>

<p><Chas><br /><br /></p>

<p>I shoot, get paid, then hand over files. </p>

<p>I'm a 50/50 guy, I ask for 50% up front and 50% upon delivery of the photographs. The first 50% is non-refundable and will be applied to the total. However, if they back out and of course they had that date locked in, they lose that 50% because I lost the whole day to their event that someone else could have used and really paid me for the work. I look at it this way, if you don't like the price and the terms then go else where. Contracts are important regardless if they are friends of the family or not. CYA is important!</p>

<p>I get my payment on the day of the event and before the delivery of the photos.<br>

I always tell them when i expect payment when they first approach me so that there is no awkward moment when i ask them for the payment.<br>

I always ask for payment before i leave the venue of the event.</p>

<p>It's been about 30 years since I did any shoot for hire stuff. Back then I would show the client proofs in person. They would pay me for the proofs and order any enlargements paid in advance. If I was in the business now, I would do the same thing digitally. Here's how:<br>

A client would log-in to <strong>my web site</strong> with their unique customer ID. They would be able to view the proofs in an online album format, but <strong>not able to download or "Print Screen" capture</strong> the images. I would give the client a limited amount of time and a limited number of log-in sessions before requiring payment. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>They would be able to view the proofs in an online album format, but <strong>not able to download or "Print Screen" capture</strong> the images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It's not possible to prevent users from accessing images. The only way I've seen that even makes it difficult is to have a flash gallery that changes the images faster than they can be grabbed, but people don't like that because they can't check out the images.</p>

<p>Streaming media (real media?) would make it difficult for all but the technically savvy hacker to steal images. If they are logged on with a unique user ID they should also be required to acknowledge their agreement with your legally binding terms.<br>

The idea is to make it easy for your clients to do the right thing and make it difficult for them to steal from you. If they steal the image and you find it someplace later on, you have an audit trail back to their user ID - since that is the only place they could have gotten the image. </p>

<p>Hi Jeff,<br>

You can always have a Java script turn off the right click so you can't save the photograph, with a very noticeable water mark the only thing they could do it take a print screen of the screen and be left with a photograph that has a water mark on it. Flash is nice, but so is Java Scripts.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You can always have a Java script turn off the right click so you can't save the photograph,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That won't stop anyone with a modicum of computer knowledge. The image is already downloaded to your cache file the moment you view it online so disabling right click download does nothing. You just need to look in your cache for the image.</p>

<p>Really the only way to protect your photos on-line to not put them their in the first place. </p>

<p>All the locks / watermarks / etc... do is keep honest people honest. If you want to steal an image there are always ways around it - even to the point of being able to remove watermarks. (If you really want to work at it.) </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p><em> The difference is that its kind of hard to leave a restaurant without paying because you can easily be spotted. </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

No. The difference is that you can easily be arrested as that is usually considered larceny under the circumstances without some payment arrangement. Here, you had a payment arrangement, albeit, a vague one.</p>

<p>I have been selling professional services (legal, not photography) for exactly 24 years as of this coming Tuesday, and I can promise you one thing- the more lenient you are on payment terms, the larger your aged accounts receivable will grow. And you don't want a large aged accounts receivable ledger..........You ideally want to be paid fully before you are finished with delivery of the service and work product. <br>

And if a large volume of clients won't pay their lawyer, who can easily sue them for it if so inclined, then you can rest assured that a significant volume of clients also won't pay their photographer if they can get away with it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A client would log-in to <strong>my web site</strong> with their unique customer ID. They would be able to view the proofs in an online album format, but <strong>not able to download or "Print Screen" capture</strong> the images.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, so you are that guy. I hate the way you force me to disable JavaScript before I copy stuff from your website...<br>

<img src="http://i47.tinypic.com/1567fcg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>50% before shooting as advance and the rest 50% after delivery. About Client issue, think first who is your client (to be billed) and who is your friend (not to be billed or 50/50 chance to get a payment ).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And if a large volume of clients won't pay their lawyer, who can easily sue them for it if so inclined, then you can rest assured that a significant volume of clients also won't pay their photographer if they can get away with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It shouldn't be any more difficult for a photographer to sue than it is for a lawyer. <br>

But yes, if they're slow paying their lawyers, they're going to be even slower paying everyone else.</p>

<p>Steve, a lawyer does not neccessarily need to hire a lawyer to sue someone. Depending on the facts of the matter, a photographer may need to hire a lawyer in order to be successful at it. That is the only reason why I suggested it is easier for the lawyer. Of course, suing your clients should be a last resort for either professional. </p>

<p>Most money made in Photography is in selling cameras to amateurs; selling images is a tiny fraction of photography's sales. B&H or a Ebay seller requires a payment before the item is shipped. The bulk of images shot is amateurs. Getting paid involves learning business or hoping one gets paid. Amateurs do not require quick payments since it is a hobby.</p>

<p>Just a quick couple of pieces of advice.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Your written contract for every job should state the payment terms applicable to that job.</li>

<li>The client should have the price and outputs for the job in writing as part of the contract. If the job changes, and especially if the job and the price changes, that needs to be covered in writing and the client has to accept those changes before the work gets done.</li>

<li>Never have a client in a position where he's seen the finished job and then can decide whether or not he wants to pay for it, or pay less for it. </li>

</ul>

<p>Typically for things like selling prints, I will ask for half the agreed payment up front , before I incur major print/mounting expenditure. The balance is payable as I deliver the finished print if delivery is personal; or before I ship the print if delivery is via carrier. I may agree to bill after the event only if I have significant and positive experience with a company on payment. For example I had a very large intermittent project for the UK division of a large US consultancy. They paid every one of a couple of hundred invoices over several years within four weeks of submission. I never had an invoice query, and a series of standardised prices was agreed annually. So after a while I started to bill them on delivery of each job as a sign that I trusted them. </p>