NPPA Independent Photographers Toolkit
Advertising Photographers of America Business Manual
Common Cents Column On The Cost of Doing Business
NPPA Online Discussion Group Instructions
Portions of this column were originally written for the April 2007 edition of News Photographer Magazine.
Mark Loundy is a media producer and consultant based in San Jose, California. Full bio.
The opinions in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Press Photographers Association.
By Mark Loundy
"Let there be spaces in your togetherness."
— Kahlil Gibran
They may be breaking up the old gang of Creative Fees and Usage. Most photographers stopped using the "Day Rate" model a number of years ago because it implied ownership of the images by the client. The generally accepted way of billing was with separate creative and usage fees. The creative fee depended on the complexity of the shoot and the usage fee depended on what the client wanted to do with the images.
Recently, some photographers (myself included) have stopped invoicing separate line items for creative fees and usage licensing. I just quote a single production fee and spell-out the rights that the client will be licensing. The underlying math is the same as before and the bottom-line numbers are the same, but one single fee is simpler and gives the client less opportunity to quibble.
No matter which system you choose, or whether you call it a "production fee" or a "licensing fee" or just a "fee," the critical point to make is that your work is being licensed (not sold.) The quicker you can get past negotiations, the more time you can spend on actually making images. And that's what I got into this for.
I'm hearing some nice things about Tina Anderson over at Family Circle Magazine. Reports are that she's a joy to work with and she seems to have the flexibility to deal fairly with photographers.
Big Sky Motion Pictures for "extending an opportunity for the up and coming photography students to build up there portfolio by getting to photograph a Hollywood Movie Premiere in San Francisco." If they're going to rip-off students, at least they could spell the invitation right.
The Sarasota Herald Tribune for trying to impose a Work For Hire contract after a shoot.
North Carolina State University for soliciting free images for a calendar publicizing a three-quarters of a billion dollar construction project. A reasonable fee would cost them less than they're spending on paint brushes.
WSA Magazine's terrible rights-grabbing, indemnification demanding contract. They do not even consider negotiating.
The Daily Journal of Los Angeles for oh so many things. One example: Payment upon acceptance. They promise to let you know if your work is acceptable within 30 days. If you haven't heard from them by then, assume that it has not been accepted. I'm not kidding; it really says this in the contract. It's no surprise that the Daily Journal is written for lawyers.
North American Publishing's contract is awful for many of the usual reasons. The most telling sentence is "You hereby waive to the maximum extent possible any and all rights to attribution and integrity." You certainly would if you signed it.
The unnamed photographer who ratted-out a colleague who was trying to find out if he had experienced any success in negotiating better terms with WSA Magazine.
Please let me know of any particularly good, bad or ugly dealings that you have had with clients recently. I will use the client's name, but I won't use your name if you don't want me to. Anonymous submissions will not be considered. Please include contact information for yourself and for the client.
Leftovers