What do you charge.....

[PHOTOMANTY]

A client who's asking for exclusive rights to the photographs you've taken for them? Any help would be appreciated.

[kanwingshing]

It totally depends on the client's buying power and the type of photo they are asking for.
Meaning... if you are dealing with corporations, ofcourse you can charge more....
Or if your have photo of an individual cheating on their partner, you can charger more too! :lol: ... JUST KIDDING.... :wink:
Bottom line is... there is no set price for photo... I think charge according to the client and type of job.

[4walls]

A client who's asking for exclusive rights to the photographs you've taken for them? Any help would be appreciated.
JUST SAY NO! The photos, negatives or original digital (hey I'm a poet :lol: ) files should ALWAYS remain the property of the photographer. Selling the rights will undermine the professional photographers trying to scratch out a living. Here in Vancouver for example, almost all wedding photographers sell their negatives (not many digital photographers here yet) with the wedding package. Someone started the trend now all have to do it in order to get the business. The shoot fee goes up, but still, shooting yourself in the foot or what?
???

[G3]

I normally retain the rights for all of my work. I do that so I can sell more prints later. In reality, the amount of after-the-fact money that I make from reprints is minimal. I might get 10 print sales later at the most from a wedding. Normally, the package contains all the photos they need. So, let's say that I keep the negs or image files and sell $200.00 worth of prints over the next 5 years. What I will do if they want the original images is sell them for $500.00, but retain the rights to use them for advertising, display, etc. They are only buying the rights to reprint for themselves. If they don't want to pay that or agree to those terms, I just keep them. Some people just don't understand the concept that the photographer retains the rights to the photos, even though it's really industry standard. I get a lot of "I'm paying you to take the pictures and I think I should be able to reprint them if I want to." I've even lost a deal over this because they found another photographer willing to include the negatives with the package. So, I tried to find a middle ground.

[w10d]

JUST SAY NO! The photos, negatives or original digital (hey I'm a poet :lol: ) files should ALWAYS remain the property of the photographer.

But there is a difference between usage rights and copyright, (and also sometimes between physical ownership and copyright ownership). In many situations a client can't use images without the photographer giving usage rights, and a client might need exclusive rights. Ideally all of this is agreed before any pictures are taken, and before any work is handed over.

The fee depends on the usage, (usually for a set time) and territories covered (with exclusivity costing more).

[IndyJeff]

A client who's asking for exclusive rights to the photographs you've taken for them? Any help would be appreciated.

Give a little more info. Is the client wanting to use the images for their ads, newsletter, inhouse documents, brochures? Is the image of an exclusive product of theirs in production that they wouldn't want to be released?

One thing you have to ask yourself, how much money will you make off this/these images in the future? Is it of use only to the client? That drops the value. I have sold negs in the past besides getting the agreed upon shooting fee. I got on average $100 for two rolls of 36 negs. They would have been of no use to me in future sales, model releases would have been needed to use them so, I let them go.

All in all, it comes down to two questions, if you don't sell them the negs how much work will you get out of them in the future? If you do sell, will they still need you? If this will do it for them and they may never need you again, well I would make sure that I am compensated appropriatley.