Church Photographer

[ian_cooke1]

Why can't you be both a member of the church and a contractor? Sorry if I missed the answer if it's been discussed above (I didn't read every post).

[david.wagle]

Ian -- There are things you do for or give to family that you don't do for or give to business clients.

[keith_van_hulle1]

Well, based on some of the reasoning above, then it's perfectly OK to charge your own church for time and expenses when they ask people to come in and do room or outside painting or yard cleanup. For some small or poorer churches that don't have a lot of their own resources, based on this, you'd charge them for bringing your lawnmower along with a separate charge for the gas on a Saturday spring cleanup get-together? Or charge for your time when you help serve meals to the homeless? Charging for bringing Rice Krispie treats to Sunday School? Or any of the myriad other activities that a church's congregation would normally be involved in? What makes photography so special?

 

Maybe the OP should just tell the pastor to get someone who'll do it for free so the church doesn't have to spend more money? I'm thinking that's what most conscientuous church members would do - think of the church before one's self.

[al_kaplan1]

Everybody works together for spring clean-up, and a bunch of the congregants get together to make Sunday school treats or goodies for a bake sale. It seems to me that certain services that can only be provided by a specialist need to be treated differently. Examples might include an accountant taking care of goverment paperwork relating to taxes, an attorney negotiating a special exception use variance from the municipality so the church can legally provide after school daycare for the community, and hiring a photographer to cover church events would fall under this category.

[david j.lee]

i don't know how you do it in the states, but here in mexico, priests charge for everything,

first communions, weddings, everything. and they are driven around in mercedes benz limos.

i wouldn't do a single shot for them for free. i wouldn't even do it for money. i could tell you

stories about how the guy who precides the poorest diocesis in mexico who is always eating

at the very best restaurants, the guy has a fighting bulls ranch, and he own the contracts of

several young bull fighters. of course,he plays golf on his free time.

[buckry]

Church events hardly REQUIRE a professional photographer any more than lawn mowing REQUIRES a professional landscaper. All they want is someone with a lawnmower or digital camera to step up to the plate and help out preserving the church's activities for posterity.

[chas_matthews]

Just to confuse things further... I have done work for our local church pro bono, covering events like the choir concert and the annual variety show; but if people want prints/enlargements for their own use I charge my normal commercial rate. I never give away the copyright on the images, but do grant non-exclusive right to reproduce for non-commercial purposes to allow use on web-sites, newsletters and so on.

 

I am also a partner in an IT consulting company and have bid on work for the church, but am not prepared to do the work free.

 

The difference? I have convinced myself that the photography puts the images and my name in front of a wide audience of potential clients. This has proven to be the case and to date no one who has approached me to do a photography gig on the basis of seeing pics at the church has ever asked for a discount from my normal rate.

[earl_sellars1]

Please let me clarify. I had spoken many times to the pastor about how to proceede and it was he who instisted that I treat this as a business relationship. In the building of the church he has hired many members, again to help them with their business. Our original thought was as a book presentation, and then if members wanted copies they could purchase them from me. It was only in the last week that I was asked to omit my copyright writes. They want to create images for a website and allow members to download and print them. And yes I have been asked to forgo weekends, evenings, and attend special events specifically for the purpose of photographing. Again in the beginning I offered to donate my time and only have them reimburse for the costs but my pastor insists that I treat this as a business and make a profit. I have been in prayer but this change on going from prints to signing over copyright and converting images to cd so they can be uploaded confuses me. That is why I'm looking for options and why I would like all of your help. Thanks

[conraderb]

earl - forget copyright. they don't need copyright. they need USAGE PERMISSION. give it to them. don't be a stickler to a church, man, unless this is one of those many thousand people churches and you and the pastor are on a "who are you?" basis!

[conraderb]

earl - by the way, if you are just starting out, this is good experience and possible a way to get contacts. if you are well established, and you want the work, give them a good deal and show on your invoice what the difference is (what coupon amount) you are offering to them. if you don't want to do it b/c you aren't getting paid well enough, it's fine to just tell them that you aren't the right guy for the job.

[kevin_blow]

The clarification you have provided has proven helpful. Forgive my ignorance (if what follows is not the case). Would not the reproduction and ?usage, by a third party of any of your work without your express permission, be a breach of copyright. Your church by allowing people to download images to print would pe party to the breach as well as the person downloading and printing. By signing away your copyright, this situation cannot arise. You could in theory (if you chose to) charge a fee which took into account the signing over of copyright and any lost revenues that might accrue because of it. After all your pastor wishes to treat your photography from a client contractor perspective.

 

A positive spin off from this situation is that it could bring your work to the attention of a lot more people. This can be particularly so if photos you have taken are seen by visitors to peoples homes who have downloaded and printed them (providing downloads are of sufficient quality).

 

If you do go down this route, I would ask for an acknowledgement on the website that you were the photographer.

 

I hope this helps.

 

 

Kevin

[earl_sellars1]

I really (and I mean really) do appreciate all of your imputs. I've received a lot of great advise, and a lot for me to use. Obviously, this is a delicate situation for me. I came to this forum specifically because of the thoughtfullness of the answers given. And no, the last thing I want to appear as greedy. Any other group there would not be hesitation from me. If there is any other advise I will keep reading with great interest. Again thanks.

[jimstrutz]

This has been a fun read. I don't really have anything to add, but to tell what I do. I work for a church as a pastor, so that probably colors my thoughts.

 

Someone mentioned this is like charging family, but not to me. I almost always give family members a discount for weddings, etc., but I do charge them. (I have lots of local family, and the business is good.) However, I never charge my church for photography, except maybe expenses, and often not that. Since I'm contributing regularly to the church anyway, why would I take money from them?

 

On the other hand, I get paid a wage by the church, so I am a conflicted soul. Please pray for me. :)

 

Seriously though, you ought to work this out with the pastor. But I think granting commercial usage rights to the church, and personal usage rights to its members would be the simple thing to do. I routinely encourage church members to print and use any of my church related photographs. It's not like I'm going to be making money with them anyway, and generally they are interested in photos of themselves, or their kids at church events.

[kimberly_smith___anchorage]

Earl,

I feel for you. Yes, a church is run as a business, but yet it is in many ways sacred. Put it this way, if you "hired" a fellow christian of your church because he needed a job, would you ask for a discount or freebie, or gladly pay him full price?<BR><BR>

I would not sell the copyright, just usage fees. If the images are used for editorial purposes, and the "church" is not selling them for a profit, there should be no issue. But if you are selling the copyright to the church, and the church is making a profit off of the prints, then every person in the pictures need to sign a model release, because that would be what they are.<BR><BR>

Perhaps it would be easier to provide a CD of images to the church for editorial use only (no profit to them) for newsletters and websites or a book of the year type thing. Then, post all the images online on a password protected site for the members to order images. You set the price for what you feel is reasonable. But remember that what you post for the pricing, other members (potential customers) will have problems if they see you charging 20 cents, then 10 dollars for the same size of image.<BR>

[DickArnold]

I had my business in a medium sized New England Town. I sold my pictures of the church and other town environments to the local auto dealer for quite a bit of money. I gave the same pictures to the pastor of the church and I didn't go to the church. The Pastors feelings were hurt because he saw a large picture of his church in the dealership before I gave him his. After all it was his church. I told him to use them any way he wanted. If the church made a little money off me I didn't care I lived in the town. The only wedding I did at that church was the Pastor's family's 50th wedding anniversary. I charged him 35 bucks for materials. On my all time best picture list by the way. I took thousands of pictures in that town for the paper and in my weddings. Almost all of them were unremarkable. I had only one stolen for the cover of a restaurant guide. I saw my photo in the mail box. The guy called me after the fact. Frankly, I told him I didn't much care. He actually gave me photo credit. I don't know how he got it. I had enough work that stuff like that didn't much bother me. Now if it had been on Time Magazine I would have sued. The only really sacred pictures I saw were in the Church. Mine certainly weren't and copyright infringement never threatened my business. I probably wasn't as good as all of you who worry about it.