Hiring Photographers on Session Based Terms

[evillegas]

<p>I have been getting a lot of requests for family sessions although I do not market them or even desire to do them however the money is there when I want so I take them on. I focus on weddings and am pretty busy in that genre. As an attempt to free my time up for my own family I want to ditch the family sessions altogether. <br>

However...a thought came to mind. There are always an abundance of photographers with no work. If I effectively market my family sessions and simply (dangerous word I know) hire a photographer as sort of a dispatch to complete the session all under my business name, what negative implications could come out? I am thinking of hiring 4 photographers, train them, equip them, and market sessions giving clients the option of who they want to photograph them. Assuming the photographers hold their end of the bargain, I would pay them a portion of the income and I would retain the other portion to invest in the business.<br>

(i.e, my business charges the client $500 for the session. I pay the photographer $300 and the business gets paid the remaining $200. Photographer shoots, edits distributes photographs to me and I distribute to client. Business handles marketing and dispatching of photographers, client interaction, business issues, etc...)<br>

What could go wrong? Not being sarcastic, actually looking for experienced professionals advice on what to look out for.</p>

[michaelmowery]

<p>You hit on a good topic. We photographers think that we have to do the job ourselves. This is not a good business model in general. Like any business there is always risk hiring an employee or subcontracted worker. Your fee for portraits and what you pay your photographer is backwards. Either charge more or pay the photographer less. Once you start paying employees you will learn quickly that your rates will need to be raised.</p>

[david_gardner6]

<p>No experience in this at all, but two things occur to me:<br>

<br />1) Since it's the hired photographers that the client would be in contact with, they could easily print their own business cars, leave them with the clients, and start to pick up additional work in the future, cutting you out of the loop. You could have a non-compete clause in your contract with that, but that depends on you finding out that this is happening to be effective. <br>

2) Someone else becomes the "face" of your business. If these people are professional and careful, no harm done. If they're not, then anything negative that comes out of the interaction is assigned to your company in the client's mind. </p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>What you're describing in hiring other photographers, training them to shoot the way you want and having them do the work is the difference between creating a job for yourself and starting an actual business. if you're going to grow a business and take on all the work your marketing can bring in, you need to be able to clone yourself. Otherwise you might be self employed but you're not running a full-scale businesses.<br /><br />A plumber who's getting more business than he can handle doesn't turn down the work. He hires other plumbers. If you want to argue that photography is more creative than plumbing, I would agree (although a plumber might argue). Take a chef as an example of a creative profession -- if he's getting more diners into his restaurant than he can cook for at one time, he hires cooks and supervises them. If things go really well, he opens multiple restaurants andn trains other chefs and cooks to run them. Successful lawyers and even doctors hire others -- their name draws in the clients but they delegate the actual work.<br /><br />Can your employees undercut you and steal away the work? Of course. That's why a non-compete clause is important as David says. Even then some may move on eventually. But there are plenty of people -- maybe photographers especially -- who are creative but not business people. They would love to be able to just do the work and not have to do the marketing or worry about collecting payment or dealing with clients.<br /><br />You are definitely thinking like a businessman rather than just a photographer. And as many people have said, an OK photographer with great business skills is going to make more money than a great photographer with OK business skills.<br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>That's why a non-compete clause is important</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Non-compete agreements are not legally enforceable in some states and, even in ones that do enforce them, may come with restrictions based on how they are written if they are to be enforceable. Even if the state laws allow them, it usually requires a lawyer's involvement to try to enforce it. The cost of the lawyer vs someone taking $200-300 per shoot away from you would need to be evaluated. In general, the non-compete agreement is not a good way to deal with this for a small business. <br>

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

[john_h.1]

<p>You need to be careful about creating an employee status if you exercise to much control. While that might serve you well with respect to copyright, it would create all the obligations of an employer for taxes, workers comp insurance, Unemployment employment and lots of regulations. Which is fine as long as you are doing so purposefully, not inadvertently. If you can avoid that, then you need to make contractual arrangements regarding the intellectual property in any event just in case.</p>

[allenahale]

<p>John H has many valid points. You would also need liability insurance and by having employees, have to file all kinds of reports to local, state and federal reports related to the earnings and safety of your employees. Unless you hire someone knowledgeable to perform those requirements, you will have to do it yourself - giving you even less time to take "your" photographs. The "Employee" - "Independent Contractor" relationship/definition is a complicated legal definition with huge implications on you and your business. Training people and setting standards that they must meet AND the "Non-compete" requirement sure sounds like they would be your employee - but I am not an expert - your local, state and federal tax authorities will the people to "help" you (I am being sarcastic) Research and consult experts such as accountants, lawyers, tax officials and check again so that you can make an informed decision.</p>