andy_wager1

January 8, 2012

It is certainly not being greedy to be compensated for your work.

Small, specialist publications pay little for usage of images, simply because they do not have the sort of budget to pay a lot.

Ask for something like 50 for one time use in the magazine as a starting point.

January 8, 2012

The most basic thing you need to do is figure out your total cost of doing business, only then can you have an idea what you need to be charging overall to enable you to break even and then make a profit.

a starting point is this sort of thing https://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/cdb/cdbcalc.cfm

Once you figure that out what you need to earn on a daily/weekly/monthly basis and you have an idea of how many sessions you may do then you can start figuring out prices.

So if you work out that per day you need 500 and you are doing 2 shoots a day then you must make 250 from each.

How you then break that down into sitting fee/prints/dvd etc it entirely upto you.

There are off course other things such as checking out the competition, charging by the "finger in the air" method etc etc but bottom line is you absolutely need to know your CODB to get the base starting point.

December 28, 2011

Any advice?

</blockquote>

Yes, Please grow up.

Sorry to be rude but just what exactly do you think has been done wrong?

You submitted one of YOUR images for printing. The lab printed it.

Just what exactly do you think a lawyer is going to do (except have a bit of a laugh at you)?

Labs I know tend to look at the picture and if it looks like a professional shot then they might query doing the prints or request a signature in the box stating that you have copyright. That shot looks like a snap from a point and shoot and the sort of shot they see thousands of on a daily basis. It is certainly not one which the majority of labs would think was a pro shot. Anyone can stick a watermark on the shot, it means nothing.

December 28, 2011

A circulation of 575,000 is not a small circulation mag and a good travel magazine would have more than a "small budget" with a circulation like that.

I would be looking at between 200-500 per stock shot used. (inside at 1/4 - 1/2 page, cover would be top end).

That would be for one off usage in the magazine and 1 year web. NON-exclusive.

Usage and rights? - same thing. you are selling them a license to use or a license which gives them the "right" to use the images in xx and yy manner.

November 14, 2011

WOW, just saw this and have not read any of the replies as yet but needed to contribute my tuppence worth.

Or rather that should be my 6 figures at least worth as that is what you should be quoting for that sort of copyright grab.

Neither of the two items you have quoted are acceptable, should be acceptable and would ever be acceptable.

It seems they are trying to go back to the copyright grabs that were prevalent amongst publishing houses a few years ago in the UK (and they still try now and again).

Amend any quote you have given them to a 6 figure sum or just strike out those bits (and any others like them) and resubmit the form to them.

Now I guess I should read the responses.

October 22, 2011

If anyone actually knew the answer to your question then there would be no 2% as we would all be at the top of the tree !

Skill is only a little to do with it, there are some fairly mediocre photographers who are "famous" or rich.

It has more to do with being in the right place at the right time, your contacts and your skills at marketing.

When you find the secret then let us all know.

October 22, 2011

Get hold of "Beyond the lens" from the AOP (association of photographers).

You should be able to find it on amazon/foyles etc.

It has sample tersm/releases etc in there.

October 9, 2011

Here are some examples of charging from "established" packshot studios It does not really matter what the value of the actual item you are shooting is (I have shot things valued from £2 through to £20,000), it depends on what your costs are and what you have to do to make a profit Small products on plain background Pricing for final post processed shots chosen from a set of proofs: • 1-5 £16 per final shot • 6-15 £12 • 15 + £10 Basic product photography starts from £13 per image for 10 images, going down £6 per image for 160 images. For larger quantities, please contact me for a quote, otherwise use the form below to get an instant quote. Note there is a minimum £80 charge for any order. Single Item Shot Qty Price per Shot 1-10 shots £12.00 11-25 Shots £10.00 26+ Shots £8.00 Cutout Photography Prices Quantity of Shots Price per Shot 1-9 Shots* £39.00 per Shot 10-19 Shots* £35.00 per Shot 20-29 Shots* £30.00 per Shot 30-49 Shots* £25.00 per Shot 50-99 Shots* £20.00 per Shot So as you can see - there is a range of 12 - 39 for single shots. These are for studios who have all the equipment permamently set up for packshots and they are basically production lines.

If you have already shot some of the items for them then you know the setup and how long each one takes therefore can price accordingly.

In your case I would pitch it at about the 10-15 per item level if it is just straight shots. More if there is work involved doing cutouts or the like.

October 3, 2011

Why call it a deposit.

Do what is done on large projects for virtually anything and have a payment schedule.

1/3 on contract signature

1/3 at completion of shoot itself

remaining 3rd on delivery of final product.

Or whatever split you want to make it.

If this is a big job which is going to take a while then there is no reason at all why the client would not go with that. I have done it previously and will do so again where necessary.

October 2, 2011

I love this on the front page of their site

"I have been on the front page of three local newspapers over the past well, since 1992, because of you".."

WOW...Gotta join up............

JC. Forget them. There is NO international freelance photographer organisation and I can guarantee that the "press credentials" that this lot tout are no better than anything you could print up yourself.

September 21, 2011

This is going to sound very harsh but, I have little sympathy with you.

Damage to equipment is YOUR responsibility and would never be the wedding parties problem. Hence the reason for insurance. If that guest had fallen over and broken their neck on your equipment then would you expect the b&g to be responsible?

As soon as you bought an expensive bit of kit you should have been onto your insurance company to ensure it was included on your policy. There is no excuse for not doing so.

I am sorry but I don't believe you should be mentioning the grooms offer at all unless he brings it up again. You should be taking the hit on this.

IF and it will be a very big IF the groom brings it up again with an offer to pay then by all means talk to him about it but the likelyhood is that he has sobered up and realised just how expensive the kit is and that it is not in fact anything to do with them.

Again, sorry, but you have learnt an expensive lesson in the need for proper insurance and proper control of your environment.

September 18, 2011

Make no assumptions.

All commissions are whatever is negotiated and agreed between the two parties.

August 24, 2011

Off course you should have liability insurance. You are very lucky to have "gotten away with it" upto now.

You may not be asked for it because the vast majority of people/companies assume that any business will have it.

August 24, 2011

<h6>I said I would like to be paid but he never</h6>

</blockquote>

In future don't say "I would like to be paid". Tell them that they cannot publish without payment.

August 18, 2011

At the most basic, you price them based on your overall costs and the profit you wish to make.

If you are offering a speedy and high quality service then do so at a premium.

August 18, 2011

I as a client have every right to have any photo printed for my own pleasure,

</blockquote>

Wrong.

This is from the UK copyright act, The US and most other countries are the same/similar

The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the following provisions of this Chapter, the exclusive right to do the following acts in the United Kingdom— (a)to copy the work (see section 17); (b)to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18); [F1(ba)to rent or lend the work to the public (see section 18A);] ©to perform, show or play the work in public (see section 19); [F2(d)to communicate the work to the public (see section 20);] (e)to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation (see section 21);

</blockquote>

So making a copy of the work (printing it) is an infringement whether or not that is for commercial purposes or "public" display.

To the OP. YOU as the person printing the work are responsible to ensure that or take reasonable steps to ensure that the person has the right to have the image printed.

This can be as simple as having them sign a form that they own the copyright of the image.

August 14, 2011

Yes is the simple answer.

However a lot of studios now offer that as a part of their "service" already so you would need to contact photographers and if they are not already doing so then offer the service or get them to recommend you.

You can also offer it as a service to put together shows of family get together, remembrance shows, etc etc.

One thing to watch out for though is using music on the shows. Use generic background music which you can buy as RF or if a customer requests a specific song then get them to supply the file or else you will have to buy a commercial license.

August 4, 2011

At which point they will direct their small fee towards someone else.

</blockquote>

At which point you breathe a deep sigh of relief as it was not worth doing business with them in the first place.

</blockquote>

August 4, 2011

I would NEVER sign that agreement for a "small fee".

It is totally ambiguous and certainly does not mean "that they only wanted to use it for the show."

Also it is an an "all-time" license rather than time limited.

It gives the producer the right to use it for anything whatsoever for all time.

If you grant that license then the shot is effectively theirs (the producers) for any purpose whatsoever.

Definitely strike out the Producers portion and also I would produce a more specific license giving them a a license for use on the programme only (which is what they say it is for).

If they plan on using it for anything else then they should say so so that you can amend your pricing accordingly.

If they baulk at any amendments then change the "small fee" to a LARGE fee.

July 23, 2011

Anything which associates his service with the event for which he has not got the ok from the organisers/venue etc is likely to be problematic.

"just happening" to get the arena in the background would be treading on very thin ice indeed if this is a major event unless it was very very much in the background,

If I were the client I would not risk it.

If I were the photographer, I would take the shot, it is not your responsibility what the client does afterwards although I have no doubt others won't see it that way.

July 19, 2011

Photo girl,

The problem with the sort of question you asked is simply that it is way to wide to give a simple answer.

it is a little like asking "how long is a piece of string".

The somewhat snotty responses (mine included) were simply because a question about copyright and how much to charge are the type of questions that should be covered well before anyone actually goes into the business of taking photographs.

Ok pricing up for specific licenses is something which can be addressed later or as and when.

Anyway.

Copyright - is yours unless you are doing this under a "work for hire" agreement - DON'T.

Get a contract sorted out which lists exactly what is required and ensure that it states that the commission is NOT a work for hire contract and that copyright rests with you.

Licensing and pricing.

There are a number of ways this can be done.

you can charge a flat day rate and include a basic license (mine is for internal use only).

You charge for the photography and xx for a license. pricing on the usage depends on what (what type of license), where (geographic area), how long (3 months, 6 months, year etc), size (size of display, and also print rate) and finally exclusive or non-exclusive. Exclusive means that for the duration of the license you cannot sell the images to anyone else. Non-exclusive obviously you can. But not forgetting that you are taking images for which you would need a model release to resell anywhere anyway.

There is loads of info on the www on all this

google photography licenses or usage licensing or something like that and it will turn up loads of stuff.

Lastly - DO NOT UNDERSELL YOURSELF.

July 19, 2011

This forum is meant to be a platform to share advice and experiences, not to be cocky and judgmental. Unless you have some useful information for my above inquires for which I will be grateful to receive, I suggest you keep your irrelevant opinions to yourself.

</blockquote>

You are absolutely correct, this is a forum to share and offer advise. However the very very basic questions you have asked show that you should not be bidding for any commissions just yet.

You have asked about copyright - If you were a pro photographer you would know this already

You have asked about licensing - again, as a pro bidding on commissions you would know this already.

and lastly you asking about pricing - yet again, as a pro bidding on commissions you would be able to easily sort this out yourself.

Even if this is a commission you would not normally bid on, the basics above are the same and apply.

There is no way on earth, based on the limited information in your post that anyone can fully answer your questions.

It is very easy to say - copyright rests with you, make sure you get everything in writing and yes, if they use it for any other use than that which is contracted then you charge more.

But the basics are entirely down to you.

If you are in Godonlyknowswhereville, middle of nowhere, USA then the prices will be different than the same commission in NYK or London

It also depends on the size of the company and whether they are local, national or international.

All these things are factors that you as a professional photographer would/should know have a bearing on the final cost.

July 16, 2011

WOW, you are asking for advice on things which have had volumes written about them over the years.

If your current book consists of landscapes and other non related stuff then why on earth would anyone pay you to shoot them?

I would not pay a photographer to shoot my portraits if all they could show me was landscape shots.

You need to have a portfolio of shots of something relevant to your potential customer base.

To get that you initially will have to pay for models (or possibly do tfp sessions). To get "band" shots then you again will have to be contacting any local groups who are just starting out and see if you can offer them a "swap". The swap being you shoot them to get experience and shots for your book and they get some shots for their promotion.

Once you have experience doing these and you have a decent book of shots then you can think about promotion and marketing.

July 16, 2011

It is entirely upto you whether you trust them or not.

If you want to check on them then contact some of the artists using their services, get a sample print, fly over and check them out personally or whatever.

At the end of the day if you want to see your work distributed outside of your own little bubble then you are going to have to trust someone and you will have the same issues with any company outside of the US.

Do normal checks and keep your eye on them as best you can.

June 20, 2011

Yes you can use the shots.

If the photo was just in the background then there is no issue whatsoever.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by andy_wager1