There IS Hope (you don't have to give it away)

Promaster 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 XR IF

06/12/2012 06:46:30 AM · #1

This is for any of you those of you who are trying to make some money with your camera and those of you entertaining that idea...

About seven years ago I got my foot in the door with my local daily newspaper. The photo director put two contracts on his desk and told me, "I have to show you both of these, but this is the one you are going to sign." At the top of one were the words "Works for Hire". At the top of the one he was pointing at were the words "Publishing Agreement". I asked him what was the difference between the two and he told me that I would have to read them over for myself, but that I would sign the one he pointed at. After reading them over, I clearly understood the difference between who would own my work and I signed the publishing agreement.

I was fortunate, because not everyone gets that opportunity. In subsequent engagements with other publications, I always ask for it. Sometimes I have to decide if the work is more important that the principle (i.e., I have a WFH contract with the Associated Press. I shoot maybe one job a year for them so I'm not really giving up much.) At the very least, I try to make sure I have a shared copyright, that I'm not giving it all away. The key thing is to ask. Simply put, the publishing agreement gives the publication a one-time license to anything they use and a 90-day embargo (i.e., exclusive rights) to anything I turn in, with subsequent usages requiring a royalty payment. The WFH contract gives the publication outright ownership of everything I shoot while on assignment for the publication.

In October, 2006, I was part of the paper's team of photographers covering the National Folk Festival during its second year of a three-year run in Richmond. It was an incredible experience. I had nearly 20 images published in print and nearly another 20 published online; that visibility opened a lot of doors for me, including getting the gig as the official photographer for the Richmond Folk Festival (which, spawned off the NFF, will be in its fifth year this year).

This one particular image of Chuck Brown, long considered the godfather of go-go music,

was the main photo on the front page of the Sunday paper on October 15, 2006, seen by 250,000+ subscribers statewide, and a few more than that online. It still is one of my personal favorites. Sadly, Chuck Brown passed away last month at age 75, from pneumonia.

Thanks to my publishing agreement, though, I'll receive a royalty payment from the paper for re-using the original image when they ran his obit. In the old days, before Instagram and instant-citizen-content, that would have been expected. Today, you never know who is going to pay for what.

But there is hope!

Last Friday I received an email from someone who had seen this image online, inquiring if they could license the image to run with an article in a museum publication. Given the nature of the publication (circulation of about 10,000, not available to the public, no advertising), they could have probably gotten away with just grabbing the image and running it without me ever knowing. But no. They do things the right way. They respect intellectual property rights.

In their email they gave me enough information for me to plug into a couple online stock image pricing calculators. When I called them back to discuss the license, I asked them what their budget was and was told that they while they had a small budget, they did typically pay for content. At that point all I could do was give them my number; it would either be too high or acceptable. If it was too high, then it would be up to me to rationalize accepting a smaller amount or to politely reject them. I figured that given they had the courtesy to contact me, I could cut them a break - if necessary - just to say thanks for not ripping me off. As it turned out, rationalization was not necessary. They agreed to pay my reasonable licensing fee.

What's the point of all this?

You do not have to give your work away, #1. It's just a matter of asking, "what is your budget?" If you get any push-back, simply counter with a "Come on, are you telling me you can't come up with $XX to cover my time and effort?" At the very least, you owe it to yourself to run the numbers through a stock price calculator so that you can negotiate effectively.

You do not have to give your work away, #2. Do not simply sign works-for-hire agreements that take your copyright. Strike out offending language and/or add language acceptable to you. If they don't like it, tell them that you need more acceptable terms or you might not be able to take their work. If you are going to give it up, it has to be worthwhile and justifiable.

It's hard to put a price on visibility. If you are going to give something away, especially for "exposure", you must first have a plan in place for how you are going to exploit and capitalize on that exposure. Simply collecting photo credits without pay is not going to buy you any new gear, let alone pay any bills. Do that enough and you'll earn barely more than a reputation for being free. It's just a matter of working out the details: If I give [this] to [them], then [this] is how I will use the exposure in order to make some money.

The bottom line is that there are still people out there willing to pay for photography, but it is up to you to ask. Otherwise, sooner or later you are going to be rationalizing to someone else about why they need to support this hobby of yours...

atupdate

Pentax K-R

06/12/2012 07:13:19 AM · #2

I always love reading your photography business advice columns. Thanks for sharing your experience.

Tim

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

06/12/2012 07:22:56 AM · #3

Originally posted by atupdate:

I always love reading your photography business advice columns. Thanks for sharing your experience.

agree, keep them coming!

Yo_Spiff

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

06/12/2012 08:50:37 AM · #4

Thanks Skip, that was well written and useful.

Silent-Shooter

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II

06/12/2012 09:04:46 AM · #5

Thanks for helping us out Skip!

JuliBoc

Apple iPhone 6s+

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

06/12/2012 10:24:55 AM · #6

Skip, I have used one stock pricing calculator, but I am curious to see more. Would you share which ones you like?

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

06/12/2012 05:01:21 PM · #7

thanks for the feedback, glad to be of some use around here :D

Originally posted by JuliBoc:

Skip, I have used one stock pricing calculator, but I am curious to see more. Would you share which ones you like?

i still use the one's mentioned in this thread, Julianne.

[editorial note: boy, wouldn't it be nice if we had 'like' buttons...]

cowboy221977

Canon EOS-60D

06/12/2012 06:09:42 PM · #8

Then there is hope...awseome

kgeary

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Sigma 35mm f1.4 DG HSM for Nikon

06/12/2012 11:21:03 PM · #9

Any advice as far as getting in with local papers or magazines? I'd love to shoot some editorial work on a regular basis but don't know where to get started. I contacted a few magazines a little while back and got nothing in the way of a response.

Message edited by author 2012-06-12 23:22:04.

Ja-9

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

06/12/2012 11:30:11 PM · #10

So where were you last wk when I really needed this advice...lol

Congrats to you!!! It's always rewarding to have people seek you out for your work...

Lydia

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

06/12/2012 11:34:42 PM · #11

Thanks, Skip!!

Wonderful read and quite interesting... IF I ever get "there".

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/12/2012 11:49:25 PM · #12

it's never too late. more than anything, it's a matter of establishing a reputation of "reliable competence" - that is, being known for showing up, getting the job done, and delivering what was expected on time and on budget.

Originally posted by kgeary:

there are a bunch of links and stories on my dpc profile and more stuff on my web site. it's not impossible to get in with the local papers or to get paid; it just takes time and effort. be sure to check out how to get a press pass :D

Originally posted by Ja-9:

So where were you last wk when I really needed this advice...lol

all ya gotta do is ask ;-)

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

06/12/2012 11:52:06 PM · #13

I dunno guys.... I am NOT a photographer but have been through a lot of the same thing in the IT world (Skip if I recall your a refugee from that world but pardon me if that's wrong, it's in my head for some reason).... The reality is trying to hold the line against a probably irresistible force is just not going to work IMO. Don't get me wrong, I understand what your saying and understand the logic; and while some things might help in the short term, I'm just not sure how it can work longer term. I not trying to be negative okay.... I'm just trying to understand how trying to hold the line on the licencing model is sustainable.

I see some photographers become internet successful but to be honest it's in selling stuff to us part time wannabees and doing classes and what not OUTSIDE photography. Even that has to have some end because by now a lot (most?) people that want to learn photography probably are in the market already. There is no doubt a lot that we never hear of that are doing fine and maybe thriving but I suspect they are fewer then those struggling.

I look in my own professional world where teams are a fraction of people that used to exist, huge pools of temporary cheap resources with far lower quality, less commitment and shorter implementation time lines - sound familiar?

Anyway... just some thoughts late at night - good luck....

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

06/13/2012 12:14:03 AM · #14

it is tough, no doubt, robs, but not impossible. it takes work, maybe a lot more work than it used to, but it can be done, especially if you have images that people can't easily get elsewhere.

that "can't easily get elsewhere" is primarily a function of building a unique catalog/portfolio. you either already have the images or you have the ability to create the images or you have the ability to capture the images.

the same thing is true in IT. some work is commodity work, readily outsourced. some work, though, requires serious skills and creativity, and that is what pays. there is a huge difference between someone who can simply sling code at 3am and someone who can envision a solution, map it out on a whiteboard, articulate it to non-IT management, AND sling some code.

as for photography, even though a lot of it can be done like it doesn't matter, when it does matter, you need someone with the gear and knowledge as to how to use it to get the job done.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

06/13/2012 10:17:11 AM · #15

Yeah not disagreeing with most of your points..... Just that the pool of people that make a "decent" (whatever that means and it's obviously subjective) living is far smaller then it used to be and there is downward pressure on those in the pool - there has been a move to push the risk to the individual over the organisation. Organisations have become far more price sensitive as the ONLY measure over quality - I don't see it swinging back the other way any. I just don't see it as a long term sustainable solution to continue an older model - I don't know what the new model is either. I don't buy the be better then the other guy thing because there are other factors at play.