Church Photographer

[earl_sellars1]

I was asked to become our new church's photographer to allow documentation of

construction, people, events etc. I decided to bill per picture (w/additional

reprint charges) and retain copyright. I do not develop so I found 2

commercial labs therefore there are costs involved. This allowed me enough

income to offset film and deveoping. This was if I use 2 rolls of film but only

give 50 to sell they will only get charged for the 4x6s. And since it is my

church, when I get asked to photograph a 3 hour event,the church will not be

saddled with an expensive contract. Now the curch wants me to transfer

copyright so they can use images for website etc. My counter-solution was to

allow the selling my copyright per image they request, but I have a feeling

they will not go along. Any ideas?

[elnoralouisa]

Wow, can't believe you are charging your own church more than cost, but well...I do volunteer work for a dog rescue, and I had the director sign a paper that says the pictures are rightfully mine, but she is able to use them in any newsletter, website, etc. that she wishes. I am digital, but I wouldn't think of charging her (I do the website, so I more or less have control of my pictures--but if I was doing it for my own church it would be at cost). I don't see why you can't have a mutual copyright so that you own the pictures, but they can use them.

[david.wagle]

My answer as a church going fellow myself:

 

Read Acts 4:32, follow up with 5:1-10

 

Profiting from your service to your own church community? Worrying about what is yours and what is the Chruch's?

 

You should be compensated for your time and effort, but the entire thing should be handled as a work for hire if you are a member of the Church acting on behalf of the Church. After all, if you were a member of a company acting on behalf of the company you wouldn't retain rights.

 

You can even gift the copyrights and write it off on your taxes.

[buckry]

Wow, I photography my church's soccer league, maybe I should start charging per kid, 12 kids per team, 20 teams total... Cha-ching!

[annealmasy]

Debbie, David, and Ryan: this is BUSINESS, and there is nothing wrong with Earl asking for

a stipend to cover his costs and maybe even make a profit. He needs to support and care

for his family, which, I understand, is also a Biblical command. :)

 

Earl, I would suggest that you do not give them the copyright. This means you no longer

have ANY rights to the images; you no longer own them, and can no longer use them

without permission from the church.

 

Instead, what the church is probably wanting is USAGE rights. In writing, give them

permission to reproduce the images for their website and marketing materials. You might

even request that you be given credit wherever your images are used. "Photo: Earl Sellars"

 

I work for several for-profit and non-profit organizations here in Atlanta, and I have never

sold the actual copyright. We instead have a detailed usage agreement. :)

 

I suggest that you include the usage rights in your fee. If this means you need to charge a

little more, so be it. But selling it after the fact is a little odd, since that's the reason

they're asking you to take the photographs in the first place.

[buckry]

It's a church, and besides that it's HIS church. Does that mean I should "clock-in" when I help peel potatoes for the chicken noodle dinner? Should I join the union when I'm working on the Habitat for Humanity house? It's not a business, it's called charity. Fortunately, charity is part of business. I document many things for my church. I burn all images to a CD. I put that CD into the hands of a church official and I walk away. No documents are signed, no cash is transferred. If I had film costs I'd ask for cost, but since my only expense is a CD, a label, and my time, I ask for nothing. Any other approach is quite simply greedy.

[eric friedemann]

Earl, I don't have a problem with you charging your church. I would just make sure that Church leaders didn't think they'd be getting your service for free BEFORE you start doing work and billing the church. Get your agreement with the church as to fees and copyrights in writing, so no one is suprised or unhappy later.

[david.wagle]

Anne,

 

It's HIS CHURCH.

 

Does he want to be a member of the community or does he want to be a contractor.

 

There's nothing wrong with either, but there is something wrong with trying to be both at once.

[annealmasy]

The attitude that a church, by default, should ask for or accept handouts from its members is

appalling to me. Marketing materials are an optional item. ANY organization who wants

them should be willing to pay for them. The fact that Earl is offering his time and talent at

cost is a generous offer in and of itself.

 

Why not stop judging his decision and instead answer the question he came on here to ask?

[karenco]

Why is there something wrong with being both an employee and a member of the church. Do you think the minister doesn't get paid? The church secretary? The church janitor? Please.

 

My cousin is a minister. My aunt is a missionary. My other cousin is a music teacher at a religious seminary. I GUARANTEE you that every one of them gets paid for the jobs they do. And I guarantee you that they understand the difference between service and employment. When my cousin asked me to set up a portrait area for their Valentine's Day dinner for the couples of his church, he expected to pay me the fair going rate. This concept that one should give away their services for free just becausae it's a church is ridiculous.

 

Earl - to answer your question, NEVER give or sell your copyright. Ever. What the church is asking for is usage rights or licensing. I'm a little confused by your post and the numbers you gave. I'm not sure what the 50 is of, the 2 rolls of film, or the 3 hour event - it seems very confusing to me. What I would say is since you're donating your TIME for free, write up a proposal for the church. I understand you trying to be flexible and not lock them down to a contract but you MUST have your agreement with them in writing to protect both sides. Even if it's just an email that says "these are the terms". It also helps them to understand the value they're getting. (Additional to that any time value you donate to the church is a tax writeoff, so you want to be sure to document the value of the time you're donating so that you can claim it on your taxes.)

 

I hope that makes sense to you.

 

Karen

[buckry]

The bottom line is the church most certainly did not "hire" one of its members to take pictures for the directory. They asked a member if they would like to donate their gift to help the church by documenting various church functions. This is not a paid gig, it's volunteer just like every other job in the church except minister. Cover your costs, don't lose a penny, but don't make one either. Give the church full use of every single picture you take, but don't sign away your rights. This is the simplest photography situation I have ever encountered, it's the very definition of "no-brainer." If you present your church with contracts and pricing schedules they are going to move down the list to another member who enjoys photography and have them do it.

 

So the question is, do you want to do this or not, if you do, tell them how much your film and processing costs are and be happy you are giving something back.

[david.wagle]

Karen -- a paid employee of an organization doesn't retain rights (in most every case)at all. So again, it's a moot point.

 

Either he wants to be a contractor or he wants to be a member of the community.

 

I am not saying he shouldn't have his costs covered. If they want to pay him a stipend for his time, that's great, he should accept it.

 

Yes, there are a few paid positions -- namely those which require full time attention and not providing a living stipend would mean they could otherwise not get done.

[ellis_vener_photography]

You don't needt otransfer your copright to them unless you wantthe church to ow nthe

photographs. If you don't want them to own the photogrpahs you can write a contract

allowing them as little or as much usage as you want them to have, for whatever length time

period you want to allow it for.

[buckry]

I think the key here is do they expect you to be at every single church function to document it whether you were planning on going or not? If so, that would mean giving up evenings you had other plans, giving up weekends where you had other jobs, and otherwise putting in a lot more effort than you would otherwise. In this case, I'd say you are definitely entitled to some sort of compensation. I'm on call at my full time job 24/7, that's not free, I'm compensated for it. If my church wanted that kind of commitment, I would certainly want something out of it.

 

If on the other hand, they're only wanting you to photograph as much as you can at the events that you're going to anyway, as I suspect they most likely are, asking to be compensated is just plain greedy.

[david.wagle]

Ryan that's an excellent point and one I didn't really consider.

[cricketprints]

Earl,

It will help you to pray, asking God to help you make your decision and to ask yourself "what would Jesus do?" ... I have my opinion just as others do but this one is between you and God. Keep in mind that offering a free service to the church now may help you get paying jobs in the future.

[j_c38]

If this is something they want him to do on a regular basis and be committed to photographing a bunch of stuff that they would otherwise hire someone, then go for it, I'd charge my church too.

 

I have done quite a bit of photography for my church, but its all little one hour commitments here and there and have not charged.

 

At minimum I would charge for your costs with no guilty feelings. No reason you need to pay out of your pocket. Another way to do it is to charge the church full rate then donate it back to the church. This way you get a tax right off. You better claim the income too!

 

I'm all for helping my church, but do you see the minister working for free? It is HIS church too! To me it really depends on the relationship between the church and the photographer. Are they asking you do help out with a task or are they asking you to do a job? I know, I know its a fine line, but only you can make that decision.

[katieontario]

What an interesting and yet totally bizarre thread Earl! I love it!

 

I totally agree with Scott - give this up to God and seek His answer through prayer.

 

However, another option, as with Ryan's fine point of how much you are expected to be committed: Are you being sought after as a professional photographer or as a member of the church?

 

And really, in the end I do not know why the two need be separated as many people tend to forget that church is run as a business anyway. As per Karen's sentiment above.

 

Any compensation you receive - formally or informally will be graced from above.

 

Which leads me completely off topic, and perhaps sounds hypocritical, but:

 

I have not hesitated to receive compensation from WORK I have been commissioned to do for my church. Yet, while I tithe I do not receive a year end tax receipt from monies I have tithed throught out the year: Even though everybody wins, there is something weird about being finacially compensated for money I have given 'from the heart'.

 

My photography business relies on prayer - and He never ceases to surprise me - Amen!Amen! :)

[kari douma]

I agree with a lot of what is said here. I do some photography for my church too, at no cost to the church. But, that is my choice. Find out what they are looking for. If they just want some of the events covered that you would be going to anyway, I would do it for no profit. Cover your costs, but no profit. If infact, it is a large job, that would require a lot of your services, a lot of extra time that you weren't planning on, talk to the pastor or council of the church about your feelings, and come up with a plan.

 

If the church needed a few plugs changed that would require an hour or two of service, I would hope an electrition in the curch would volunteer his services for the job. If the church needed to be totally rewired, requiring a weeks worth of full time work, I would expect the church to hire the electrition from the congregation to do the job, and pay him.

 

As far as usage of the photos go for website, I would let them use anything for free as long as you get credit for them on the site.

 

I get a lot of paid work (Seniors, families, kids, weddings) from members of my congregation because they all know I am a photographer. They all know that because I do whatever photography our church needs for free. Over the last year I did 4 weddings, 2 seniors, 4 families, and a bunch of kids and babies from our church.

[karenco]

In response to a few people above:

 

Saying that the church "most certainly did not hire him" is silly, since we here have no idea what was said or done by the church or Earl. Earl said he decided to charge for costs, so it's apparent that there is an element of "hiring" going on, whether it's for costs or for more. It's most likely that there was no solid understanding on either side, which is where the whole problem is. It all goes back to making sure AHEAD OF TIME that you have a clear understanding with some form of written documentation - doesn't have to be a formal, signed contract. Just an agreement of terms.

 

"Every other job in the church except the minister" is NOT a volunteer job. I ask you again, do you think the church secretary is unpaid? Do you think the janitor is unpaid? Do you thnk the youth minister is unpaid? What about the accountant who works on the church books? The church is a BUSINESS as well as a spiritual center. And IMO, the church has just as much of an obligation to not take advantage of their members ... by paying a fair wage for work done when it goes beyond the occassional volunteer job.

 

As to the "paid employee" - Earl is not a paid employee of the church unless they hire him and start paying his taxes and benefits, so that argument is irrelevant. Earl has the right to charge the church a fair business rate for his time and work. He may choose to donate some or all of the time and costs or he may not. That is between him and the church. Calling into question his Christianity because he is endeavoring to run his business like a business is .. IMO ... not very Christian.

 

Karen

[afs760bf]

Could this be solved by simply giving the church a CD with low-res images on it for their web site? Maybe the church could get what they want without you giving up your rights to the original photos, if that is important to you for some reason.

 

You state that you "decided" to bill per picture and retain copyright. Perhaps that decision should have been discussed with the church? Maybe it just wasn't what they were expecting.

 

I've documented the history of our church for the last 23 years. I have them in albums, and have provided the church with albums. The pics are used on the web site as well. The subject of copyright has never come up. Not sure why anyone else would want them. I take family pics every year at Christmas for the church families. If the families or the church want extra pics, they can pay for the prints if I don't have enough extras floating around. I guess I've never seen any reason for all the complications.

 

Cheers.

[david.wagle]

Karen,

 

No one's saying to not run his business like a business.

 

But if that's what he wants to do, it doesn't matter that it's "his" church. Then he's a contractor and he shouldn't treat them any differently than any other client.

 

But appearantly he is treating them differently than other clients. Which is why I said:

"Does he want to be a member of the community or does he want to be a contractor.

 

There's nothing wrong with either, but there is something wrong with trying to be both at once."

 

 

[minirant]

(btw -- when you put something in quotation marks, it should actually be a quotation . . . not a paraphrase that may well miss the intended meaning of the original statement ... )[/minirant]

 

If he wants to do this work as a member of the community, then pick up a stipend to cover expenses, including lost opportunity costs of not doing other work -- in other words, his going rate for time or maybe a slight discount, bill them for costs, and then donate the pictures including the rights to the church. That is how a member of a family treats family.

 

If he wants to do this work as a contractor, then charge them his going rates for everything and ignore the fact that it's "his" church. It's just another customer.

[al_kaplan1]

Hey, I'm a Jewish guy, but over the years my regular clients have included the following not for profits: a Catholic college, The March of Dimes, the YMCA, the local Greek Orthodox Church, and the occasional shoot for a nearby Lutheran Church, a Hindu Temple, and the Congregationl Church around the corner. In every case it was they who initiated the the business relationship, asking me to take pictures, telling me that they expected to pay for them, and in several instances telling me that the discounted price I quoted was too little.

 

Keep the copyright, give them the right to use the photos in church publications, their website, and for newspaper publicity.

[ian_cooke1]

This is an excellent example of why one should avoid talking about religion in casual conversations (as well as mixing religion & business/politics/etc.)<p>

Personally, I don't see a problem with charging a Church as long as it's good honest work that you are doing and no one is being cheated. Giving them a discounted rate or freebie is great, but is completely voluntary and I'm a little puzzled why people would frown on it so much.

[david.wagle]

Ian -- the difference is between being a member of the church and being a contractor too the church.