# $1000/year for 1 photo!!?



## D-50

So my company is putting together a business plan for future expansion, a photograhper took some shots of one of our locations and said if we want to use the photo on the cover it will be $1000 a year for the use of the photo.... Is this usual? sounds unreal to me, anyway my bosses did not realize the extent I am into photography and I am going to take it for them tonight.  I just wanted to hear others opinions on this pricing


----------



## dpolston

That might not be out of line. I would love to see the shot (out of curiosity). It kind of sounds like a "photo for lease" for advertising. 

Think about it. Around here you lease a billboard starting around $800 a month. Maybe this guy thinks the same way? His shot is your company's billboard. (BTW - offer your shot for $500... nevermind, that might not be ethical.)


----------



## Alpha

Not entirely unusual. Publication fees are just one of the many ways that commercial photographers make money.


----------



## Sideburns

seems alright for me.  Except...if it's just internal then perhaps he went a little high?
You never know though...pricing is all over the board.


----------



## Alpha

Also, to put it in perspective, he or she would have to land 100 of these contracts in order to gross six figures.


----------



## astrostu

For a public brochure/ad, that seems fine.  Think about how much your company will be effectively making by the use of it.  For an internal brochure that sits in peoples' "In" boxes that they never look at, then I agree it's fairly high.  Try looking at a stock photo site and see what the licensing fee would be for similar usage.


----------



## D-50

I understand this person needs to make money but it was just a shot of a fast food location.  Also its use is for the cover of a marketing plan.  Yes this plan will hopefully bring in money through investors however I do not thnk it is integral to selling the idea of the business, meaning if the investor meets with us and likes what we put forth I do not think he/she is going to say "I love the business plan and strategy but it was the picture on the front cover that sold me". Furthermore the general public will never see this photo so its not a regular advertising shot.

Anyway though I did the shot last night and it looks just as good as the other photographer's and will be going on the cover of the plan.  Looks like she shot herself in the foot with such a high price.


----------



## Big Mike

> Anyway though I did the shot last night and it looks just as good as the other photographer's and will be going on the cover of the plan. Looks like she shot herself in the foot with such a high price.


How much is the company paying you for the use of the photo?
You might be loosing out on a bunch of money.

I'm not a commercial photographer...but I do know that it's a pretty lucrative market, if you have the clients.  A 'cover shot' would probably demand a high price...although cover for a marketing plan is probably different than a cover for an advertising product.


----------



## subimatt

Seems perfectly reasonable depending the size of the company/ exposure it could get from said image. Winds up being a little over $80 a month for an advertising image. if it doesnt yield results after a year, you change it... loss of 1k? im sure thats less than the electric bill for one month of a medium size office.


----------



## Alpha

D-50 said:


> I understand this person needs to make money but it was just a shot of a fast food location.  Also its use is for the cover of a marketing plan.  Yes this plan will hopefully bring in money through investors however I do not thnk it is integral to selling the idea of the business, meaning if the investor meets with us and likes what we put forth I do not think he/she is going to say "I love the business plan and strategy but it was the picture on the front cover that sold me". Furthermore the general public will never see this photo so its not a regular advertising shot.
> 
> Anyway though I did the shot last night and it looks just as good as the other photographer's and will be going on the cover of the plan.  Looks like she shot herself in the foot with such a high price.





Big Mike said:


> How much is the company paying you for the use of the photo?
> You might be loosing out on a bunch of money.
> 
> I'm not a commercial photographer...but I do know that it's a pretty lucrative market, if you have the clients.  A 'cover shot' would probably demand a high price...although cover for a marketing plan is probably different than a cover for an advertising product.








"and the problem is, there's so goddamn many [photographers] who have no idea that they're supposed to be paid every time they do something-- they do it for nothing."


----------



## phakimata

There are photographers that charge even more. It all depends on the type and purpose of publication.


----------



## Alpha

Unless your company is pinching pennies, I think that undercutting this other guy was wrong. At best, you're entering into a relationship with your employer in which you're not a photographer but an employee with a camera. You can expect to be treated as such in the future.


----------



## D-50

Undercutting is a way of business and personally I feel $1000 for a photo is too much. If this was not for my company I would charge anywhere from $200 to $500 depending on the size of the company and the nature of business.  That being said if I were to do a job for a giant company I would of course charge a lot more... I believe you need to gauge your customer and charge accordingly. Furthermore I have actually given my notice to this company so I will not be employed by them for long. I figureded I'd help them on my way out, as for pinching pennies when trying to start a fast food franchise you need to save every penny you can. At roughly $400,000 to open a store it is a very expensive industry and the profit margins are slim considering we use all natural foods.


----------



## astrostu

MaxBloom said:


> Unless your company is pinching pennies, I think that undercutting this other guy was wrong. At best, you're entering into a relationship with your employer in which you're not a photographer but an employee with a camera. You can expect to be treated as such in the future.



Agreed.  You're also cutting out the independent person for in-house, which though cheaper, is kinda a blow to the "little guy."  For example, my Aunt is a freelance graphic designer and had designed packaging for a product.  But instead of using her design (which the company really liked), they ended up going with someone in-house which was nearly identical.


----------



## Sideburns

D-50 said:


> Undercutting is a way of business and personally I feel $1000 for a photo is too much. If this was not for my company I would charge anywhere from $200 to $500 depending on the size of the company and the nature of business.  That being said if I were to do a job for a giant company I would of course charge a lot more... I believe you need to gauge your customer and charge accordingly. Furthermore I have actually given my notice to this company so I will not be employed by them for long. I figureded I'd help them on my way out, as for pinching pennies when trying to start a fast food franchise you need to save every penny you can. At roughly $400,000 to open a store it is a very expensive industry and the profit margins are slim considering we use all natural foods.



you might charge that...but that's not how the photographers normal business structure works in most cases.  If it's a small use photograph...then maybe he did overcharge...but you should have haggled instead of doing the photo for free...


----------



## RKW3

Lol may we see the picture? Go ahead and copyright all over it I just want an idea of what it looks like haha.

How was the other guy's photo? Was it just a snapshot-like picture or is it okay? 1,000 dollars seems like way too much to me, but just 200 dollars would seem like a lot to me! Haha good luck with your picture goin on the cover or whatever.


----------



## D-50

Lesson to be learned from all this;
as a photographer either consider the financial situation of your customer and what they can afford and charge accordingly or be prepared to lose out.  $1000 a year for the use of a photo for the cover of a business plan was not in our ballpark.  Consequently after seeing my photos my bosses want me to photograph all our products and for this I will be charging my regular rate and they are fine with it. So for taking an hour out of my day to take a shot of one of our locations I generated paid work for myself.


----------



## Mrsforeman1

Now, my question is...
What are your photos worth to you and the employer?
I know that you probably don't want to answer that but, I am glad to hear that you gained a client.


----------



## DeadEye

D-50 said:


> Lesson to be learned from all this;
> as a photographer either consider the financial situation of your customer and what they can afford and charge accordingly or be prepared to lose out. $1000 a year for the use of a photo for the cover of a business plan was not in our ballpark. Consequently after seeing my photos my bosses want me to photograph all our products and for this I will be charging my regular rate and they are fine with it. So for taking an hour out of my day to take a shot of one of our locations I generated paid work for myself.


  Glad you got the work. 1k has to be a darn good shot. Most I ever got was 800 and the customer named that price ( I worked my tale off to get that shot) and I gave them full copyright. I now see it in there calender and post cards but they do give me the credit as photog.


----------



## BPALMER

:thumbup:





Sideburns said:


> you might charge that...but that's not how the photographers normal business structure works in most cases.  If it's a small use photograph...then maybe he did overcharge...but you should have haggled instead of doing the photo for free...


:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## dangerdoormouse

I just hope you are never unlucky enough to work as a free-lance. You spend hours on a shoot, all for someone who works for the company (with all the perks of working, like a regular salary, sick leave etc) does the same shot as they are a keen armature. Did you shoot from the same angle? Did you unintentionally shoot from the same place? In which case she spent all the time finding the best shot and you got a free ride. I would have haggled had I been your company. It is common business sense to start with a high price and then the client argues it down (often significantly).


----------



## emogirl

so, D-50....you charge more if they have more money?  that is unethical...you have a set price for use and you stick to it, big or small...that will come back to bite you in the butt.


----------



## Josh66

I don't think it's very ethical to charge based on how deep the pockets are either.  Imagine if they did that to you at the grocery store.

You would have people coming to you with "Why is this quote so high?  XY Corp. referred me to you and said that this package was only $xx.xx."

Then you would say what?
"Oh, well the thing is..."


----------



## D-50

So your telling me if you shoot product shots at $100 per shot and Mcdonalds knocks on your door and says we want you to shoot our new burger you are only going to charge them $100.  That is not smart business. 
However, if im dealing with people, lets say photographing a child I have a set price regardless if you live in a mansion or a trailor, although if you live in a trailor and do not have much money I will most likely work something out that fits your budget (everyone desevers to have good photos of their friends and family regardless of their financial well-being).  Its really only when Im dealing with a company that I look at what they stand to gain from this shot financially and alter pricing accordingly. 

And to answer the question of about the angle of the shot it is not rocket science to figure out what angle a building looks best from.  In fact when I got out of my car I immediatly found what I felt was the best angle, turns out the other photographers shot was from a very similar angle.

Finally I feel to help out a business that you work for and one which you really respect the owners of and talk to on a daily basis is fine.  I know you need to charge for work and I do charge people who I do not know my regular rate, when it comes to friends Im very flexible.  I edited a friends photos from a vacation and made a photobook for them free of charge.  The person brought the book into work and her co worker loved it so much she asked if I would edit some of her photos and make a book for her.  I am charging her my regualr rate of course but from a favor I did for a friend I gained a job and furthered my name as a photographer.


----------



## THORHAMMER

From what Im hearing it sound like this is a business plan that is going to be used to attract investors. 

I would hope something this serious would be taken seriously by the company. If the photographer nailed the shot, pay him what its worth. 

If this is the cover and the plan itself is going to generate like hundreds of thousands from investors, I dont think 1,000 a year is a big deal. 

depends in circulation, how many you might print, etc... 

If it was a large corporation with more than 500 employees 
Id prob charge 5K for the shot. 

If they consider giving a guy 100 bucks to do it, then I dont want 
them as a customer anyways


----------



## Josh66

D-50 said:


> So your telling me if you shoot product shots at $100 per shot and Mcdonalds knocks on your door and says we want you to shoot our new burger you are only going to charge them $100.  That is not smart business.


If I had a price sheet, and that was my quoted price - yes, I would stick to it.  If the price is too low that's my fault for underestimating how much I should be charging.  If you charged according to how fat the wallet was, pretty soon the only people coming to you would be the ones that expect everything for nothing.

They could probably afford a lot more, but it wouldn't be more work for me (shooting cheap burger vs. shooting expensive burger), and I don't think they expect to pay more just because they have more money.

But I'm not a pro, so what do I know.  I could be way off from how it really works, this is just what makes since to me.


----------



## D-50

> If it was a large corporation with more than 500 employees
> Id prob charge 5K for the shot.


.....exactly

by the way this company is comprised of 3 owners 1 manager and 15 food preparers hardly a 500 person corporation  also the photo on the front of the business plan is not going to sell an investor on the company the content is there for that.  They could have just as easily put the company logo on the front.


----------



## Dominic

You still sound like a weasel.


----------



## D-50

Hey dominic go eat a crab cake.................... thread is done


----------



## EBphotography

D-50 said:


> Hey dominic go eat a crab cake.................... thread is done



Interesting.


----------



## dipstick

The idea about charging according to how much money the client has sounds really odd too me. As long as it is commercial work, you charge for the usage you are selling. And you charge according to your price list or whatever pricing system you have.

If his price is $1000 then that's what he's charging. There is normally room for some negotiation on the price, but you are free to not buy it if you don't want it.

A gallon of milk costs the same no matter if you make a $100k or $20k a year. You can of course give away both milk and photos as charity, but charging more just cause your client is loaded seems rather unethical to me.

I have no opinion if $1000 was too much in this case, as we have not seen the photo or really know the exact usage the photographer quoted.


----------



## dipstick

D-50 said:


> So your telling me if you shoot product shots at $100 per shot and Mcdonalds knocks on your door and says we want you to shoot our new burger you are only going to charge them $100.  That is not smart business.



You still charge for usage. 

Chances are that MCD would license the image for more usage than a local restaurant.

Get the point?


----------



## Mesoam

to the people criticizing the charge difference between large and small company's you are really just putting your feet in your mouth...its just how commercial photography or commercial anything works...


----------



## Fate

i cant believe D-50 sparked up all this over one commission. Essentially he can charge what he wants. If someone is charging a large amount for something, then surely D-50 has every right to offer something better... even more so as it was a favor. If the photographer is good enough to charge 1k per year for a pic of a fast food place, then she should'nt have issues finding business else where. 

I think people have been a bit to quick to judge D-50. A one off favor is not going to put everyone out of business.


----------



## hawkeye

agreed

Supply and demand ladies and gentleman... lets not forget the open market principals


----------



## dangerdoormouse

I suspect people have been quick to judge D-50 because he posted this on the thread. If he didn't want to be judged then he needn't have told.


----------



## RacePhoto

Mesoam said:


> to the people criticizing the charge difference between large and small company's you are really just putting your feet in your mouth...its just how commercial photography or commercial anything works...



Yes and No.

I sell a product with an advertised price and the price is the same for everyone. If some independent walks in and pays cash, I may give a discount, but basically, everyone else pays the same price.

Medical, lawyers and psychologists and many other professional services, will charge on the ability to pay, so there's an example of a sliding scale, and everyone doesn't pay the same price.

If Sears comes up to company E and says we want to buy 10,000 of your widgets, you better believe, they will get a better price than if I want to buy one. Lets say a buyer buys in volume, but needs only one widget, he'll get a discount because of the business relationship. We won't.

I sell photos to publications for "standard rate and data" which is the going rate for that publication. Some other magazine may pay more or less. A newspaper may pay more or less. They set the prices, based on size used, I don't.

The original photographer probably charged his standard rate for a one year license for a high quality professional product. I'll assume he gets that rate elsewhere, so no problem. The buyer has the option to accept or reject the quote... and they decided to use someone else's bid.

You go to Mr. Big portrait photographer for the stars and you are going to pay more than if you go to Mom's corner portrait studio. Neither one is going to drive the other out of business, because they market to a different client base.

What's my point. There's no cut and dried answer to the pricing question, even though some people here can do that or criticize someone else, all in one sentence.

I personally don't believe in giving work away, unless it's for charity groups. Friends get a better price. (oh I left that out above didn't I?) If one of the places I work asked me for a photograph, they would get a better price than if some stranger wanted a similar shot.

Pretty simple in the end. D-50 did someone he knew a favor. No BFD!

ps I like crab cakes, what's with that?


----------



## D-50

I too like crab cakes, I was making a comment to dominic though who came in at the end of this thread and added a pointless comment. his profile says he is from maryland and thats a big crab place.


----------



## Mesoam

Race - of course there are exceptions to just about anything


----------



## therustytracks

MaxBloom said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE
> 
> "and the problem is, there's so goddamn many [photographers] who have no idea that they're supposed to be paid every time they do something-- they do it for nothing."




that's why there needs to be some type of guild for photographers. Just like the writer's guild. They banded together to try and gain a larger profit from tv series dvds. photographers should band together to create a collective that sets standards and prices. Even if it was on a local basis it would work. Because if you've got joe shmo taking pictures for 5 bucks and a professional with a studio making a living on photography alone who's charging $200 most people would pick joe over the pro. It would set a competitive edge in the market and people would chose quality photos and service over price. Either way some one doesn't get the shaft because of price.


----------



## dipstick

Well, I don't really see the problem. Like others have pointed out, everyone i free to charge what ever they like. I know a lot of photographers that have no problem making a decent living from photography so there is still enough clients out there that are willing to pay for quality work.

The fact that "everyone" are photographers these days with their dslrs just means that photographers have to stand out by the quality of their work, not by their equipment. Everyone can be lucky and get a really good shot every now and then and sell it a microstock or to their own company, but my clients call me again and again cause both my quality and pricing is predictable for them. 

Some of my clients I had for awhile are not even asking me for quotes anymore, they just tell me what they need, and they more or less now what I will charge.

The problem with changing your pricing schemes according to who the customer is that the customer paying a $1000 a photo is gonna start nag you once he finds out that you sold a similar photo for a buck to another company where he happens to know the manager.

So my advice is to find where your pricing level needs to be and price according to the type of job and usage. There is of course always room for negotiation, but if a client doesnt wanna pay, I don't give in on the price. 

If you wanna work for free, there is plenty of non profit organizations to volunteer for.


----------



## TamiyaGuy

D-50 said:


> I too like crab cakes, I was making a comment to dominic though who came in at the end of this thread and added a pointless comment. his profile says he is from maryland and thats a big crab place.


hehe, nice one 

But on-topic, I think you're perfectly liable to charge depending on the size of the company. If you figure that they're going to make millions from your photograph, then you should be perfectly entitled to some of it. Obviously, there's a limit, but it's perfectly reasonable. It's merely business.

However, when it comes to personal photography, there should only be a flat rate (IMO). It would be unethical to make someone reach deeper into their pockets just because they have bigger ones. Companies, however, are another story.

But hey, I'm just a kid with a D40 and too much time on his hands. What would I know?


----------



## nossie

Dominic said:


> You still sound like a weasel.


I second that (politely).

uhm sorry you wanted opinions about pricing but... 

I think you took the bread and butter from the mans table.  He found the client he did the hard work of motivating the client for the sale and then you gizumped him.  It's legal but it's not nice.
I think you should have taken the next piece of work from your boss but not this one.  I'm not having a go at you but I think what you did is distasteful but taste is a cultural thing anyway.

The price is the highest you can get someone to willingly pay.  That is how we work on a daily basis as employees, I work for company A because it pays more than company B, even if money isn't the only remuneration.  My time is available to the highest bidder.


----------



## sfaust

Commercial photography is based on usage. Usage makes it fair for all buyers since smaller companies don't use photographs in the same way as a national one would. Joes barber shop will pay $50 in usage for an image in his brochure since its only distributed in a few local towns. Vogue magazine will pay $3,000 or more for a cover image because it will be distributed to hundreds of thousands. It doesn't matter if the image took the photographer 5 minutes to shoot, or 3 days. The usage is the same. The photographers day rate will cover the labor and expenses. 

When I shoot for commercial clients, it is indeed a sliding scale based on the company size. Smaller companies pay a lot less, and deep pocket companies pay 20 times more. The reason isn't the size of their pocket book, but how they will use the images. Larger companies use images in much broader ways than a smaller company, and thus pay more for it.

If you produce a killer shot for Nike, they use it in all their advertising, in store displays, duratrans, web advertising, etc, and its going to help them sell millions of dollars in shoe sales, it's worth the $30K they pay in usage to the photographer. If the same photographer produces a similar piece for a local clothing retailer, and it's catchy enough to help drive customers to their store, and make an additional $10K in sales over the year, its worth every penny of the $800 they would pay in usage as well. Its not how deep their pockets are, but how the images are used, and the value it will bring to the client.

Musicians get more money playing to a stadium filled with 100K people than they do when they do a performance in front of 1,000 at a smaller venue. The songs are the same, it takes the same effort on their part, but the 'usage' is different. Same with advertising and commercial photography.

One more point I'd like to make. The employee that shot the same image for their company is being paid a salary, their computer was provided by the company, their desk, floor space, electric, phone, utilities, all paid for by the company. Health insurance, matching retirement funds, all covered. They don't need liability insurance, nor do they need to hire a lawyer, accountant, or business advisor as its all covered by their employer. They don't need to pay marketing, hire consultants to design web sites, etc. 

They probably occupy a 10'x10' floor footprint, where a commercial photographer needs to recoup the costs of a 3,000sq ft footprint. The employee doesn't have to pay or maintain $50K in equipment, and replace it every 3 years when clients demand the latest and greatest.

And don't forget a photographer can't shoot 5 days a week. So they need to recoup all their costs in a 2-3 work week window. The other 2 or 3 days is for running the business, administration, maintaining the digital image archives, writing quotes for new jobs, creating marketing materials to keep work coming in, sending out invoices, paying the bills, taxes, collection agent, and sweeping the floor and putting a new coat of paint on the cyc wall. So when they quote $2,000 per day, its not $10K a week, but more like $4K. Makes a huge difference at the end of the year 

So yea, $1,000 probably seems way to much for the employee. But for a commercial photographer running a studio, its not nearly enough.

Just some food for thought.

Stephen
Commercial Website, Blog


----------



## Village Idiot

400k to open a franchise and not 1k to spend on a photo?


----------



## CanonSnob

I'de like to see his photo and see your photo.

sfaust hit it right on.



sfaust said:


> One more point I'd like to make. The employee that shot the same image for their company is being paid a salary, their computer was provided by the company, their desk, floor space, electric, phone, utilities, all paid for by the company. Health insurance, matching retirement funds, all covered. They don't need liability insurance, nor do they need to hire a lawyer, accountant, or business advisor as its all covered by their employer. They don't need to pay marketing, hire consultants to design web sites, etc.
> 
> They probably occupy a 10'x10' floor footprint, where a commercial photographer needs to recoup the costs of a 3,000sq ft footprint. The employee doesn't have to pay or maintain $50K in equipment, and replace it every 3 years when clients demand the latest and greatest.
> 
> And don't forget a photographer can't shoot 5 days a week. So they need to recoup all their costs in a 2-3 work week window. The other 2 or 3 days is for running the business, administration, maintaining the digital image archives, writing quotes for new jobs, creating marketing materials to keep work coming in, sending out invoices, paying the bills, taxes, collection agent, and sweeping the floor and putting a new coat of paint on the cyc wall. So when they quote $2,000 per day, its not $10K a week, but more like $4K. Makes a huge difference at the end of the year
> 
> So yea, $1,000 probably seems way to much for the employee. But for a commercial photographer running a studio, its not nearly enough.
> 
> Just some food for thought.
> 
> Stephen
> Commercial Website, Blog


----------



## henkelphoto

Sorry I came to this thread late. 

As for charging different prices based on customers. Some do, some don't. When I'm doing commercial work, I have a set half/day and full/day rate. Those don't change. But if someone wants me to do a 7am-11pm day, I do charge more than my normal day rate. Whether they want one photo or a 100, the day rate doesn't change, although if they want prints, that will add to the cost. 

As for undercutting another photographer, well, it happens all the time. I have a friend who's policy when he's looking for spec work is to see if the photo can be done quickly with little or no specialized equipment. If so, he doens't bother with it, figuring that if it can be done with a simple camera and one lens, he will always lose out to someone's nephew or an employee of the company with a camera (no offense to the OP). What he looks for is complex lighting situations where the guy with a DSLR and a kit lens has no idea what he's doing. 

It sounds like the photo in question was a simple building shot that could be done in 10 minutes with a dslr and a wide angle lens. If so, the person who bid $1000 should have expected to be underbid. So be it, I don't think the person spent a lot of time crying over a lost job. If you're in this for a full-time business, you expect to be underbid frequently. That's why you build up a client list based on quality jobs. 

Jerry


----------



## Nikon Norm

So it's a $1,000 photograph....................

Photographers expense:

phone bill to receive call from client
car payment to visit client
gas to visit client
time to have meeting with client to hear the brief
travel to location to take shot
depreciation of pro camera equipment ( bet it was not a D50 camera)
travel back to studio location
cost of computer
time for photoshop
cost of CD to burn image to
shipping & packaging cost to deliver CD
contribution to health plan
contribution to retirement fund
rent for studio or office
utility bills to run photo business

We have not even got to Photographers salary yet.

You know I blame George Eastman for this, everyone who owns a camera thinks they are a Photographer.


----------



## Village Idiot

Plus, is it possible to sue for purjery in this case? Some one takes a photo that a company is interested in, declinces it because of cost, and then the exact same photo taken by a company employee ends up on all the brochures, etc...


----------



## henkelphoto

Perjury is where you lie under oath. I suppose you could sue for theft of intellectual property, but then the original photographer would have had to copywrite the photo in the first place. And you'd end up spending months or years and thousands of dollars to pursue a lawsuit that has virtually no chance of succeeding. 

Do what most pro photographers do, bid a job, if you don't get it, move on to the next and don't bother taking the company's phone calls again. 

Jerry


----------



## D-50

> depreciation of pro camera equipment ( bet it was not a D50 camera)


 
First off I have not used my D50 in years I chose the name after I found this site simply because it was what I was using.
Secondly you can take professional quality photos with a D50 if you know what you are doing. (I actually take offense to the idea that the camera makes the photographer. By that rational anyone with a 5d or simlar 
pro-level camera is a proffesional. I have a wealthy friend who bought a D3 just because he wanted the best camera avaiable... He has no idea what hes doing at all, the camera is clearly to complex for him but by Nikon Norm's thinking this person is a professional.

Also you cannot sue because someone took a similar shot as you did. And certainly not for lying under oath.


----------



## *Mike*

Couple little things...

You can sue just about anyone for anything.  You may not win, but you can still bring suit.  You'd be throwing your money away, and making someone else throw theirs away, and be making yourself an all-around pain in the butt, but you can almost always bring suit.

Oh, and Canon does not consider the 5d a professional camera.  It's in their prosumer line.   )


----------



## castrol

That video that was posted was pure awesomeness. I would like to link that in
my signature, but the NSFW language in it might get me in a little trouble.

I agree with the "$400,000.00 to open a franchise, but no $1,000.00 to pay for a
photo" that will be used again and again and again and again?

That is $2.75 per day of use out of a photograph that could potentially be seen
by hundreds of thousands of people everyday. Pretty inexpensive.


----------



## davidfromoz

I'm not a pro or anything.  My opinion might fly in the face of professional photographic practice.  But I believe a photographer should be paid for the work they do.

If you were surprised by the price, and the photographer wasn't paid for the work they did to take the shot then there must have been something wrong with the agreement.  If its a win-win agreement then the photographer would be happy with getting paid for taking the photo and you would be happy to pay for the photo if its good because you already decided before the shot was taken.  If you decide you can deliver the image cheaper and more easily then nobody loses.

There is nothing special about the image.  As you discovered, it can be recreated easily.  But perhaps there was real skill in composing and shooting the photo.  The photographer should charge for that and you should expect to pay.

cheers,
david


----------



## Nimitz

How about a more basic question ...


This commercial photographer agreed to the job, took the images and THEN discussed price?  He didn't have a contract to shoot the image first?  I don't shoot commercial so maybe this is the norm but I wouldn't take a gig for a commercial shoot without having the price set ahead of time.

If you're just shooting on spec and approaching clients cold that is one thing but to agree to take a job without an agreed to price doesn't seem like smart business to me ...


----------



## sfaust

D-50 said:


> Also you cannot sue because someone took a similar shot as you did.



Dead wrong. You can't copy another persons copyrighted work, and thats stated plain as day in the copyright law. Its exactly what the law was written to prevent, and the law stipulates some pretty stringent penalities for willful infringements. The fact it was a working pro charging usage, I would bet its properly registered bringing into play statutory and legal fees as part of the award. 

If you are unsure of this, read though some of the summaries of the copyright law on any of the reputable websites. If that doesn't convenience you, there are quite a few public court cases regarding exactly this situation where the original photographers won large awards. There was on about 4-6 months ago written up in PDN (Photo District News).

If you really copied the same image, and that was your intent from the start, thats willful infringement. That allows for statutory damages up to $150K per infringement, the original damages (the $1,000 he would have received), and the photographers legal costs. That could be a very costly mistake.

If you really copied it well, you did your boss a real disservice by saving him $1,000, and putting him at risk for far more in legal costs. The fact that you intentionally copied the work to avoid paying the photographer, and the boss agreed, won't go over well with the courts.

Lets hope either the original photographer doesn't ever see the image, and/or this conversation.


----------



## Josh66

I'm no lawyer, but I'd be willing to bet that there _is_ a difference between "similar" and "copy".


----------



## sfaust

O|||||||O said:


> I'm no lawyer, but I'd be willing to bet that there _is_ a difference between "similar" and "copy".



Yea, there is, and it gets argued in court at $350 an hour 

But yea, it all depends on how similar the shots are. It doesn't have to be exact, or a perfect copy, to end up in court. If its close enough the photographer feels he was infringed, thats all it takes to get him motivated enough to call a lawyer and file suit. Whether its close enough to the original to win is a whole different matter. 

Once you are in court, its costly whether they win or loose. So the key is to avoid having something close enough that the original photographer will 'feel' infringed, rightly or wrongly,  and decide to take action.

So yes, you can definitely be sued for a 'similar' image, and people have.


----------



## AmericanJesus

I got bitched out by someone the other day cause I offered to do a job for a guy he almost had signed into a 3k contract for  500 dollars and a reference.

Im so unsure about my own abilities i feel awkward charging people, so i mostly just say "Ill do it to fill my portfolio."

=\ experience is more important to me then money, because i can use experience to help price myself in the future.

Altho New lens!


----------



## *Mike*

If you're really doing a $3k job for $500, then I would hope that you're unsure of your abilities b/c they really are _that _marginal.  Otherwise, you're losing money, undercutting other people, and in general devaluing the profession just b/c you have low self-esteem.  

Experience won't help you price yourself in the future.  Competence _and confidence_ will.


----------



## cdanddvdpublisher

O|||||||O said:


> I'm no lawyer, but I'd be willing to bet that there _is_ a difference between "similar" and "copy".



there is a difference, however, it's a small one - especially if you set out to recreate another photographer's work


----------



## mmcduffie1

*Mike* said:


> If you're really doing a $3k job for $500, then I would hope that you're unsure of your abilities b/c they really are _that _marginal.  Otherwise, you're losing money, undercutting other people, and in general devaluing the profession just b/c you have low self-esteem.
> 
> Experience won't help you price yourself in the future.  Competence _and confidence_ will.



I agree. It's hard enough to close a sale in this business. If i was selling usage for 1k and someone (not a pro like i would be if i were doing that) undercut me - i'd be miffed. I feel like undercutting when you have the inside track is unethical.  IMO


----------



## Alleh Lindquist

I am curious why the photographer had taken the shots of your location before hand? Did they do it on their own or did your company ask? If your shot looks the exact same then it was a little unethical and could maybe be considered theft of intellectual property but I don't know a whole lot about clients stealing one photographer&#8217;s ideas then hiring another to use them and do it for less.

As for $1000 for what you stated the usage as I think it was reasonable but I would have included more than one year considering the size of your business. $400k to open the place and $1000 is too much for a photo for the front of your business plan? Plus you have got to be high to think that a high quality photo will have nothing to do with getting investors. The image on the front of your business plan is going to be the very first impression they will have of your restaurant. A bad photo will lose most people right from the start. 



> I got bitched out by someone the other day cause I offered to do a job for a guy he almost had signed into a 3k contract for 500 dollars and a reference.
> 
> Im so unsure about my own abilities i feel awkward charging people, so i mostly just say "Ill do it to fill my portfolio."
> 
> =\ experience is more important to me then money, because i can use experience to help price myself in the future.


 
The fact that someone was going to pay $3k proves they were interested in at least decent photography so by hiring you they take a high chance of having to go back and pay the other guy the $3k on top of the $500 you got. You have to be a retard though to think the best time to practice is when you are getting paid (seems pretty common though these days). If you want experience go out and shoot, shoot everyday and read, read and read some more and then practice what you read over and over again. 

I still wonder what makes people think photography does not take the same amount of practice, skill and dedication as any other professional title. "Hey everyone I just bought a Porsche so now I am a lawyer, what should my attorney fees be." Your Costco bought D80 kit, that super great best bang for the buck 50 1.8 and your 5 months of shooting &#8220;TONS&#8221; of photos of your family does not even come close to making you a &#8220;photographer&#8221;


----------



## gatorcruz

Well, this is why companies should hire photographers for their services/time and company keeps all rights to the images.  There are plenty of talented photographers for these services.  I hope that you, as an an employee, approached them at the lower end rate and were paid accordingly for your services.

Also, if your company owns the building (or someone else) and the building is rather new then I am not sure how the photgrapher can claim any lease rights to the image when, technically, he/she would need to pay the owner of such building for the rights to sell the image (because the building is the reason for the image's value).  Your company should have approached her with an invoice for $750 for the year ... That should have made it more reasonable .


----------



## Vmann

sfaust said:


> Yea, there is, and it gets argued in court at $350 an hour
> 
> But yea, it all depends on how similar the shots are. It doesn't have to be exact, or a perfect copy, to end up in court. If its close enough the photographer feels he was infringed, thats all it takes to get him motivated enough to call a lawyer and file suit. Whether its close enough to the original to win is a whole different matter.
> 
> Once you are in court, its costly whether they win or loose. So the key is to avoid having something close enough that the original photographer will 'feel' infringed, rightly or wrongly,  and decide to take action.
> 
> So yes, you can definitely be sued for a 'similar' image, and people have.



I'll add to this... I work for for a clothing company that creates licensed apparal in the outdoor hunting market and we have been sued on multiply accounts for similiar images. I said similiar like a photo used in a magazine jobing out of the water and a vector illustration used on a embroidered cap taken down to 6 colors. Not much similiarities other than they are fish jumping out of the water like every bass picture most people have seen. Most these suits don't even make it to court. They end up being worked out like this.

Royality for product already in hand, Sue for 150k but settle for 25k and all law expenses.

Know lets apply to your company just starting out. Sue for 150 but there lawyer offers up the option to keep it out of court at a cost of 25 what sounds resounable. 

My own opionen undercutting is a part of life but extreme lowballing and use of there image for the basis of yours is wrong. You know what would be even cooler just have you do your job for a whole week then take all you've done and hand it to someone else have them summarize/copy it and turn it in for half of what you where going to make. Who cares right its just business.

Not trying to be a complete jerk but I think what you did was wrong.


----------



## jstuedle

D-50 said:


> Lesson to be learned from all this;
> as a photographer either consider the financial situation of your customer and what they can afford and charge accordingly or be prepared to lose out.  $1000 a year for the use of a photo for the cover of a business plan was not in our ballpark.  Consequently after seeing my photos my bosses want me to photograph all our products and for this I will be charging my regular rate and they are fine with it. So for taking an hour out of my day to take a shot of one of our locations I generated paid work for myself.



1) $1000 is not out of hand considering the viewership the image will get.  It's all about the numbers. Besides it deductible for the company. It's also  taxable for you.

2) IMHO, it is unethical for an employee who is an  insider to "bid" on a job against outsiders who don't have your inside track. As  a retired aerospace engineer for a major jet engine manufacturer, I would not be  allowed as a matter of company policy to compete on this type of work. Even as a  retiree, I am locked out of any consideration. Simple professional ethics should  bar any employee, current, retired, or recent past from consideration.

3)  As an employee of this company, you could be expected to perform this work as a  matter of course related to your current employment. Your compensation could  well be your hourly rate if you are a non-exempt employee. And as part of your  normal salary if you are an exempt salaried employee.  So in a nutshell if you  make $20.00 an hour, and it takes you 15 min. to walk out and push the shutter  button, you might make $5.00, or nothing if salaried. I signed a release as a condition of employment agreeing that any patents or other value I brought to the table for my employer was compensated at my normal rate and was the sole property of said employer. 

To wrap it up, I  would respectfully decline as you might put yourself in a position where you  either feel taken advantage of, or your worth as an employee called in question.  If you plan on doing the work, get it writing and don't shoot it on company  time.


----------



## dmassphoto

So, let me get this straight....

  This company was going to hire a photographer to take this photo, and their employee caught wind of the bid, knew the prices that were being charged, then willfully and deliberately low-balled the main competition by who-knows how much, THEN went out and took the same photo?

This is unethical, unprofessional, and any other "un" I can think of right now.

  I know I only have a few posts in here, but the level of amateur thought when it comes to the business of photography is really making me believe this is not the place for me.  Those who wish to make any kind of career out of photography should really listen to professionals who know their stuff, because those guys are the ones putting their way of life on the line, just so others who have no idea how to run a business can come in and take all their hard work away from them.  I really believe that everyone who knows how to take "pictures" isn't qualified to sell images or services.  Have some respect for the profession and those who work so hard to maintain their way of life.


----------



## Stanger

I see no problem with what D-50 did. He did the same amount of work as the original photographer. He can work for free if he wants. It isn't his duty to ensure the photographer gets work. They asked for more than the company wanted to pay, so an employee helped them out. If you can't make enough to support yourself as a professional photographer, that is your problem, not mine. You get paid what the market dictates, period. In this case, the market says you don't get the job at all. That's the real world folks, grow up and stop crying.


----------



## StrBender

dmassphoto said:


> So, let me get this straight....
> 
> This company was going to hire a photographer to take this photo, and their employee caught wind of the bid, knew the prices that were being charged, then willfully and deliberately low-balled the main competition by who-knows how much, THEN went out and took the same photo?
> 
> This is unethical, unprofessional, and any other "un" I can think of right now.
> 
> I know I only have a few posts in here, but the level of amateur thought when it comes to the business of photography is really making me believe this is not the place for me. Those who wish to make any kind of career out of photography should really listen to professionals who know their stuff, because those guys are the ones putting their way of life on the line, just so others who have no idea how to run a business can come in and take all their hard work away from them. I really believe that everyone who knows how to take "pictures" isn't qualified to sell images or services. Have some respect for the profession and those who work so hard to maintain their way of life.


 

Amen Brother, 

I don't think they have any idea what it means to be or act like a professional photographer. In the end they will destroy the profession by continuing to dumb down the profession. 

When I was a builder I had to compete against yuppie builders who used/abused illegal help to get the job, but had no idea how to do any of the work. The government turned their head and looked the other way, so I left the business to pursue my photography business. Now it seems like everyone with a camera calls themselves a professional and the prices have tanked. Being a professional photographer is 95% being a businessman and 5% being a photographer.

Go to Getty Images and see what the "Real World" licensing fee would be for this project. Then compair that against what a store clerk thinks is acceptable and you will see were the real pro's are comming from.


----------



## JodieO

D-50 said:


> So my company is putting together a business plan for future expansion, a photograhper took some shots of one of our locations and said if we want to use the photo on the cover it will be $1000 a year for the use of the photo.... Is this usual? sounds unreal to me, anyway my bosses did not realize the extent I am into photography and I am going to take it for them tonight. I just wanted to hear others opinions on this pricing


 

That's low.  Consider that to be a deal.

It's a shame that so many people are low in commercial photography anymore - it is dragging the industry down.


----------



## farmerj

Having looked at going back to school for photojournalism, photography and doing more than a hobby,  This is mainly why I WON'T do it.

I ust say, the professional courtesy and legal view here bit the dust.


> *What is copyright infringement?*
> As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work     is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a     derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.



I hope the other photographer DOESN'T see it they way either.  If it were me, I'd be having someone in court before the ink could dry.  Litiganous society?  Yop, but we have pretty much made it that way on ourselves.

I do so hope you can sleep well at night.  It's on par with plagiarism.


----------



## Rhubarb

When will this thread die?


----------

