Photos/CD's for Clients

[ImagineTNT]

We did a shoot for a clothing manufacturer to take some shots of their clothes for their Web site. We set up the contract so they paid for our time and also for rights to use the photos on their Web site only. The contract stated they would receive medium resolution images. During the shoot we talked about the possibility for them to purchase digital originals for use in their print catalogue and/or print advertisements since this wasn't part of the original contract. We did state that we maintain all copyrights for the images and specifically granted them limited use for only their Web site.

The client has now asked us why we don't provide all the pictures to them because "most other photographers" do that. Do most of you set up contracts this way? I figure the client pays for our time shooting and then has the option to purchase whatever they want use the photos for: prints, limited copyright usage on the Web or print, etc. This is the same thing as charging a sitting fee for a model and having them pay for prints as well.

How does everyone else do this?

[tim]

That's the way it's traditionally done. I've never worked out why photographers should be different from anyone else - why do we get paid for our time, then paid again just because they want to use the image for someone else? It doesn't seem to be very consistent with many other occupations.

[Longwatcher]

The right to charge based on what the content will be used for is an artistic community staple.

It is the same model as singers and songwriters use. They license a song for distribution on a CD, but if you want to use the same song in a movie or video that requires a different license and if someone else wants to perfomr it, that is a different license. Each has their own rates based on use.

And movies, you bought the DVD and have it, but you are only licensed to view it with your family and friends. You have to negotiate something different for showing to a public audience. You may be using the same literal DVD, but the use is what you negotiated for.

Also applies to artists doing artwork, the original has one price, limited reprints have another, unlimited another, and use for book covers another and each is considered a different use/application.

Since photographers are artists, why shouldn't we operate under the same standard. We produce a work of art for a specific application. If someone wants to use it for a different application then additional compensation may be requested.

As an additional point, models charge based on what the shoot will be used for (as in web versus print verus magazine), even though it requires the same amount of time and effort in the various cases.

[ImagineTNT]

Thanks Longwatcher. I've been trying to figure out a good metaphor to explain it. The best I could come up with was that when you build a house you pay contractors for their time but also have to pay for materials. The artistic community metaphor is much better. Thanks!

[tim]

Good explaination there.