| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/05/2006 10:42:06 PM · #1 |
How do you guys figure out your licensing fees for each project?
I read a book that said you charge a creative fee as your main fee which covers your basic overhead + other fees + licensing fees.
A lot of extra licensing is rated as a percentage of the creative fee - but how do you figure out the main licensing rate?
It provides tables with low, middle, and high rates for specific things - but it doesn't say how they arrived at that price, or if that price is for one image or multiple images, etc. It also says that it is for exclusive rights, yet the invoice they provided with licensing terms and agreements starts out by saying that the photographer is providing non-exclusive rights? For assignment/contract photography does the photographer usually provide exclusive rights or non-exclusive? At one point on the same page it says "price for exclusive rights" and then at the bottom it says "if the client requires exclusive rights then charge at least 200% of the creative fee" - etc.
This is turning out to be fairly complicated - can someone please help break this down and simplify this process for me?
Message edited by author 2006-09-05 22:42:20. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 10:44:51 PM · #2 |
Oh, this is above my head, but I wanna watch this too.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2006 11:20:48 PM · #3 |
| Somebody has previously posted a link to a calculator for (rights-managed) stock image prices -- I'd start by searching (hint hint) for that first, and maybe checking the price charged by one or more of the major stock agencies (Getty, Corbis, Alamy ...) for a photo of similar size and usage. Whether you need to go up or down from there probably depends on your needs, experience, and client. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 11:24:03 PM · #4 |
| I'm not sure what it is, exactly, that you're looking for...but I found this to be pretty interesting //www.ozimages.com.au/stockpricing/Calculator.asp?FieldID=6 |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 12:14:41 AM · #5 |
I'm not looking for a stock calculator because stock prices are much different.
I'm basically looking for clarification on assignment pricing and licensing terms. |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 12:41:09 AM · #6 |
It depends on what type of "assignment" you're talking about -- I imaging a fashion shoot would be different from a product shot which is different than documenting mine safety violations.
Are you (planning) to support yourself with this or is this a part-time freelance opportunity? Have you rented a studio or are you working out of your home/car?
Ultimately, the amswer is whatever you (think you) can get the client to pay. |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 07:57:28 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It depends on what type of "assignment" you're talking about -- I imaging a fashion shoot would be different from a product shot which is different than documenting mine safety violations.
Are you (planning) to support yourself with this or is this a part-time freelance opportunity? Have you rented a studio or are you working out of your home/car?
Ultimately, the amswer is whatever you (think you) can get the client to pay. |
Exaclty - thats why I'm wondering how people come up with numbers.
Doing this from my home part-time - my goal is to make an extra 25-35k per year on average starting within the first 3 years and grow from there. |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 08:48:22 AM · #8 |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 09:51:12 AM · #9 |
For those who happen to be unclear on what the OP is actually discussing, there's a parallel that applies to acting in commercials for TV: the talent gets paid a fixed amount for appearing in a specific ad campaign, and has residuals in perpetuity if the campaign "grows legs" and is used over and over again. Same thing for actors in sitcoms, as another example; if the sitcom goes into syndication, the actors receive residual payments every single time an episode in which they appear is run on television, and this is like having an annuity, the long-term payout can be substantial.
Typically, commercial photographers working with ad agencies/clients will charge a fixed fee plus expenses to create an image for a specific use. If the agency/client then decides to use the image again, or repeatedly, they will have to pay a licensing fee each time it is used. The size of the fee will depend largely on the exposure of the image, market-wise. The same image used in a half-page ad in, say, Playboy Magazine, will command a MUCH larger licensing fee than if it is used in "Gemology Quarterly".
The reasoning behind this is simple; if a client asks you to make an image for an ad to be run in a local publication for a local or regional ad campaign, the picture is "worth" less to them than it would be as a component of a national ad campaign.
I can't be any help on actual pricing because it's been so long since I have been in that end of the business.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2006 10:05:13 AM · #10 |
I have a musician friend who acted in a commercial for GM. He'd done a few commercials and acting jobs over the years. But a friend wrote this particular contract and made sure to put in a perpetuity clause.
Well apparently this particular add got played for four years in various parts of the world and wound up making a couple hundred thousand dollars if i recall correctly.
Yes, Monopoly should revise it's game and add a new card:
"Old contract written in your favor. Collect $1,000!" |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 07:42:02 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
For those who happen to be unclear on what the OP is actually discussing, there's a parallel that applies to acting in commercials for TV: the talent gets paid a fixed amount for appearing in a specific ad campaign, and has residuals in perpetuity if the campaign "grows legs" and is used over and over again. Same thing for actors in sitcoms, as another example; if the sitcom goes into syndication, the actors receive residual payments every single time an episode in which they appear is run on television, and this is like having an annuity, the long-term payout can be substantial.
Typically, commercial photographers working with ad agencies/clients will charge a fixed fee plus expenses to create an image for a specific use. If the agency/client then decides to use the image again, or repeatedly, they will have to pay a licensing fee each time it is used. The size of the fee will depend largely on the exposure of the image, market-wise. The same image used in a half-page ad in, say, Playboy Magazine, will command a MUCH larger licensing fee than if it is used in "Gemology Quarterly".
The reasoning behind this is simple; if a client asks you to make an image for an ad to be run in a local publication for a local or regional ad campaign, the picture is "worth" less to them than it would be as a component of a national ad campaign.
I can't be any help on actual pricing because it's been so long since I have been in that end of the business.
Robt. |
Great post bear - I had read this exact same thing in two books that I just got. Basically they said there is no hard rules to follow and that you can price whatever you want - no industry standard...but that there are some pricing points to go by, specifically ones you mentioned. It's all about the VALUE of the photo and how much money it will potentially make for the client. |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 08:55:47 PM · #12 |
Neat page. I'll have to point this out to others!
$41/ hour, or $35 if i only count cash expenditures. I charge more than that, so I should be profitable!
|
|
|
|
09/06/2006 09:20:41 PM · #13 |
| I came in at $500 per day. |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 10:00:21 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
For those who happen to be unclear on what the OP is actually discussing, there's a parallel that applies to acting in commercials for TV: the talent gets paid a fixed amount for appearing in a specific ad campaign, and has residuals in perpetuity if the campaign "grows legs" and is used over and over again.
Robt. |
Yes -- my mom is currently in a commercial for Orbit Gum (where Snoop Dogg gets sent to "the Bad Place") -- she's one of the little old ladies who constitute his particular hell. We're hoping there's a lot of dirty-mouthed rappers out there she'll convince to by gum ...
There's nothing like getting checks in the mail for work you did months ago, though remember, the people who own/made the commercial are making (more) money too. And sometimes those residual checks are for just pennies, but you have to account for them all on your taxes (a few years ago my mom had something like 40 W-2 forms to file with here return!). |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 10:21:56 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by KevinG:
I came in at $500 per day. |
Lots of variables to tweak...i have assumed i can bill 1400 hours/year, so that divided by 8 is 175. I had not thought in terms of days... Anyway, I figure 80% of that as a realistic figure (SWAG'd it) and took the calculator's figure and divided taht day rate by 8 hours.
I set myself up at a low payrate though.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2006 10:23:46 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by KevinG:
I came in at $500 per day. |
Lots of variables to tweak...i have assumed i can bill 1400 hours/year, so that divided by 8 is 175. I had not thought in terms of days... Anyway, I figure 80% of that as a realistic figure (SWAG'd it) and took the calculator's figure and divided taht day rate by 8 hours.
I set myself up at a low payrate though. |
a lot of it depends on how much you told it you want to make per year.
and thats just for day rate...that doesn't account what you license photos for if you do commercial photography.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2006 10:28:35 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Yes -- my mom is currently in a commercial for Orbit Gum |
How cool is that!? Naturally I had to go find the commercial on the web (it's on their site: www.orbitgum.com)
Which one is MommaE? |
|
|
|
09/08/2006 06:20:23 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
Which one is MommaE? |
Watch it buddy, her name is Dee! : )
 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 05:44:45 PM EDT.
