Service fee vs licence fee

[robertbanks]

I shoot catwalk fashion shows for designers and PR companies.

 

What do you think of not charging for taking the images, but just charging for licensing them?

 

I want to simplify my contracts. I am in the UK.

 

Cheers.

[h._p.]

<p>Might be a hard sale, if your clients already expect to be charged on an hourly or daily basis. Remember that, in a crowded market, clients aren't looking for reasons to hire you. I'd suggest that your offer needs to be simpler and more efficient for them than those made by your competitors.</p>

[robertbanks]

Thanks HP. They don't expect to be charged hourly, they expect to be charged per show.

 

There are already "going rates" for this work within a range that most photographers here in London adhere to.

 

It's a niche market, and there are not that many specialist catwalk photographers around, especially since for the clients I

am thinking of the photographer needs to be accredited by the governing trade body to get access.

 

The main problem for me is that most of my competitors don't really consider licensing, which is where the variation

comes in. They just take the money and give out the images, probably with no documentation at all.

 

I'm intending to offer a standard fee for a standard licence which should allow my clients to do what they need with the

images. If they need more, such as exclusivity, transferable/assignable rights or even copyright as I am sometimes

asked, then further consideration is in order.

 

I just wanted to take the service charge element, I.e. actually turning up and taking the images, out of the fee equation, to

simplify things. But I'm not sure if there would be any unforeseen consequences to this (I would of course reserve the

right to add an agreed service charge and/or expenses if the shoot requires anything extraordinary).