Corporate Photography

[nevets2001uk]

I recently did a day of photography work for the company I work for. I priced up a days labour and then gave them a set a print prices so they could order prints for around the building. It all worked out well and I made some profit.

They have now come to me and want to use the images on their website. I have agreed but stated they must pay a fee for each image used.

I have been looking around to make sure my prices are fair and I notice a lot of photographers seem to charge a much higher day rate (double mine) but then provide all images in high res for use on website, literature and prints etc. This seems a bit strange to me as I always believed you should license out the image for each use.

My question really is, is this a normal way for photographers to price their work? Do you charge a daily rate and then licensing on top or just an imflated daily rate that includes the high res photographs?

Cheers,
Steve

[sfaust]

The fact that their day rate is twice yours leads me to believe they may include a specific set of rights with their day rate. Ie, their normal day rate could be say $1,000 (just examples), and their average licensing for corporate work could be $750 per job. So they just roll the usage into the day rate, and call it $1,750 per day.

I do have prices that include a set amount of usage, and those are spelled out in the contract. If they want more usage, they pay more. If they need less, I quote a day rate with the lower usage.

To the client, its one fee, but internally its a day rate and a usage fee. It's really up to you which way to go, just make sure the client is aware that there are usage limitations, and part of the fee includes paying for that usage.

Some reasons why you may want to combine them is that is easier to quote, clients understand it better, etc. Reasons why you may want to keep it separate is that the usage fee is obvious so its less likely to be a misunderstanding.

About 70% of my work is quoted separately, and 30% combined. I usually combine the rates for clients that have never been introduced to licensing, and work them into it gradually.

[breal101]

I do the same thing Stephen suggests. Just found it easier to quote an all inclusive price rather than day rate plus extras. Fact is I usually just quote a price for the job without breaking it down into hourly or day rate. Customers know exactly what they will be paying and seem to be more comfortable with that. The key is to ask all the right questions before giving a quote.

[nevets2001uk]

Thanks for the advice. I guess the tricky part for my last job was that there was no talk of licensed use of images when I started. They purely wanted photographs taken and printed for the walls so I spec'ed a days shooting and then charged per print purchased. Now they want images for the website I'm having to price each usage individually. It's good for me as it means more revenue for no real extra work.

The reason I asked is that I'm reworking my website and considering putting my prices online. Would you suggest giving a basic day rate from price and then pricing up based on the client spec? I guess this allows you to be more flexible on your choice of pricing.

I'm reluctant to go the route of a package corporate shoot where they get the images to be used in literature etc as then they can print the images themselves for the walls etc and I loose future revenue. Perhaps though I should do as you say and factor that into my daily charge and make sure I make enough to cover the lack of future income from the images.

Any other thoughts and advise on this is welcomed.

[Floriantrojer.com]

I'm reworking my website and considering putting my prices online.

I'd be very careful about that...First off, work that seems to need the same amount of input just doesn't always reflect how much time you actually need to spend.

2nd.... IF (big IF) you for some reason someday think / feel you should raise your prices for whatever reason...people that have seen the old prices previously on your site will wonder why. Did you become a better photographer? Is it just for the sake of making more?

I'd not put mine online to be honest, and rather do them on case-to-case basis...so far I've never had a client that precisely needs the same thing than one before, so charging a flat rate would be unreasonable! :o

[airfrogusmc]

I've never thought giving a client prices without finding all the info on the job was a very good idea. I get the info and then I quote the job. I have an hourly rate plus expenses. Some jobs just require more than others. Sometime they require more than one shooter or allot of lights, and/or special equipment. For me I have found that getting as much info as I can up front from the client then bidding on each job works for me. The majority of my clients have been with me for years so they just call I shoot and invoice the job but there are always some that I bid. When I first started my business in the beginning I bid on pretty much every job.

[nevets2001uk]

Thanks for the advise. I have to agree that my idea perhaps was not the most practical and I will be listing my services but not prices on my website. I can then quote for jobs as they come along.

[sfaust]

I've never thought giving a client prices without finding all the info on the job was a very good idea.

For some projects, it makes perfect sense and can be advisable. For example with corporate events, you could have a set day rate + expenses + usage rights package for a set fee. Listing that on your site also pre-qualifies your clients, since those that won't pay that rate most likely won't be calling you. This weeds out the bottom feeders.

The down side is that for clients that would pay more, you loose the opportunity to negotiate to that higher rate by having a set price listed. But most photographers that are asked their rates will give their set rate, listed on the website or not. So they loose that negotiation advantage anyway, so it's probably a moot point.

I get the info and then I quote the job. I have an hourly rate plus expenses. Some jobs just require more than others. Sometime they require more than one shooter or allot of lights, and/or special equipment.

And don't forget usage! Day/hourly rate + expenses/production cost + usage, is the industry norm for commercial or business to business rates. Many times bundled together, but nonetheless a factor in the overall price.

[airfrogusmc]

For some projects, it makes perfect sense and can be advisable. For example with corporate events, you could have a set day rate + expenses + usage rights package for a set fee. Listing that on your site also pre-qualifies your clients, since those that won't pay that rate most likely won't be calling you. This weeds out the bottom feeders.

The down side is that for clients that would pay more, you loose the opportunity to negotiate to that higher rate by having a set price listed. But most photographers that are asked their rates will give their set rate, listed on the website or not. So they loose that negotiation advantage anyway, so it's probably a moot point.



And don't forget usage! Day/hourly rate + expenses/production cost + usage, is the industry norm for commercial or business to business rates. Many times bundled together, but nonetheless a factor in the overall price.

Yes usage falls under expenses but I should have mentioned it. I have a client base that most have been with me for years. My field is very specialized for the most part so I'm not even in the yellow pages and I don't advertise so I don't often get tire kickers. Old clients that give me a couple big jobs a month get better rates than new clients or clients that only give me a job or two a year. All of my business is word of mouth. Once in a while I will be asked to bid on a job but usually me shooting a job is based on whether I'm available. I show up, shoot, deliver and invoice. If I'm lucky I've got a check within 60 days. Large corporations can take a while to pay. 30- 60 days is pretty much the norm.

[sfaust]

I break out usage, or lump it with my fee, rather than include it in expenses. Since its an income fee, I want it separated from my actual expenses. Just accounting differences.

30-45 days is pretty much the norm for my corporate clients. Some out at 60 days. Advertising agencies typically pay are paying in 90 days. So I add a discount on my invoices if paid in 3o days. Its a fee I add over and above my normal pricing ($150+ depending on invoice amount), which is then deducted if they pay on on time. I had a hard time collecting on late fees, so I just tack it on from the beginning. No one is complaining, and those that take advantage of the discount really appreciate it. So it seems to be working well.

Yes usage falls under expenses but I should have mentioned it. I have a client base that most have been with me for years. My field is very specialized for the most part so I'm not even in the yellow pages and I don't advertise so I don't often get tire kickers. Old clients that give me a couple big jobs a month get better rates than new clients or clients that only give me a job or two a year. All of my business is word of mouth. Once in a while I will be asked to bid on a job but usually me shooting a job is based on whether I'm available. I show up, shoot, deliver and invoice. If I'm lucky I've got a check within 60 days. Large corporations can take a while to pay. 30- 60 days is pretty much the norm.

[nevets2001uk]

All great information. Out of interest Stephen, what % deposit do you request (if any) from your corporate customers? 60 days payment does seem to be becoming more common and I'm presuming some retainer / deposit is required to ensure you can cover the gap to final payment?

Cheers,
Steve

[airfrogusmc]

I don't know about Stephen but I don't require a deposit. Most of my clients wouldn't pay a deposit but I do, with some, get purchase order #s. For the most part they have large very slow systems to pay. From the time the client submits a check request or a request for a purchase order #, gets a manager, then a director and then if the request is big enough a VP to sing off then the check request or PO request goes to purchasing then finally goes to accounts payable for payment by then its a month or so. I just invoice when the jobs complete and it usually takes anywhere from 30-90 days to receive payment. These are for the most part large corporations and I've never had a problem getting paid.

[sfaust]

For established corporations, I don't required a deposit. Occasionally a PO for new clients, but generally I just bill them after the project is complete. I have a signed agreement before I start work, and in the terms and conditions it clearly states no usage rights are granted until payment is made in full. So if they don't pay, I have a clear copyright infringement situation which puts a lot more pressure on them than a collection agency would :)

For smaller clients & local businesses, I will charge a deposit before shooting. They are more likely to bail on a project without paying than an established corporation.

On large projects where there are considerable expenses prior to shooting, I may request an expense advance. This also covers the expense costs if they cancel or never complete the project.

With all that said, I've only had two instances of non-payment totaling $2,000. So it really hasn't been a big issue.

[Annie C]

Having read this thread I realise I'v shot myself in the foot. I started to do the photography for where I work, initially it was nothing much but now I take the pictures that are used in our sales brochures, on our web and anything else. I dont get paid any extra for this and never thought to much about it at first as I never realised it would esculate as much as it has. As its done in works time I didnt think I could actually 'charge' them for my work? I do use my own camera and I have to be honest the results are good, even struggling with two 'cheap' studio lights and no studio but having to set one up in a training room! we manufacture Central heating, ie boilers and also ventilation equipment so none of it is very ‘photogenic’ and the boilers being white are great fun!
What I now wonder is, should, could I start to charge them extra! Or re-negotiate my job description and salary! And also where do I stand over copyrights, if I were to leave, could I hold them on that and make them pay for any of my images that they use.
I never minded at first doing the photography and have to be honest it is all good practice and I’ve improved no end, results have shown that, but I’m now doing it all and wonder if anyone has any ideas how I should approach it, unless it is a case of ‘horse and bolted’ Vevets2001UK approached it with his company in the way i should have.

[airfrogusmc]

Annie this is your job and a very personal thing for you. I would say if you are working allot out of the scope of your job description maybe before your next review you should ask them to revisit that ? Also remember that staff photographers that work for corporations don't usually make the same kind of $$ that a free lance photographer makes because the company is picking up things like vacation pay, health insurance and other benefits. Maybe find out the salary range of corporate photographers in your general location and field and if they make more than you then maybe use it in your job description negotiations?

[Annie C]

Thanks for that airfrogusmc, I agree and feel I need to re-negotiate my job discription and salary. I found an old invoice for a local photographer we had used in the past and he was charging us £100 per hour 4yrs ago. I realise I'm not going to 'make' much out of this, especially as you rightly say, they do pay me for holidays and such, but I am still expected to continue with all my other work as well, the photography has been an addition and ends up with me working through my lunch breaks to get it done. Where do I stand with the copyright situation though?

[airfrogusmc]

Something you probably need to work out but companies that you work full time for will in allot of cases will own the rights.

[sfaust]

Since you already shot your self in the foot, asking for some medical attention wouldn't hurt. I don't think it would be wise to point out that they are saving a lot of money by having you do it, and that some additional compensation would be reasonable. After all, you are using your own equipment which costs you money, wear and tear, etc.

All you can do is ask at this point, unless you are willing to risk your job over it. Hopefully they will understand and take care of you. If not, there is always the option of moving on to a new company once you find one, and then giving them a real estimate for your next photoshoot as a freelancer :)

Based on the work for hire stipulations in the copyright law as written, and recent court precedents, you do indeed own the copyrights to all the images. However, its not a fight I think you would want to pursue based on all the circumstances.

[sfaust]

This was send to me in a recent e-mail. It was written by Jess Sedlik who is very connected at a high level with regard to copyrights in our industry. He is an expert witness in licensing, contracts, business practices, and copyright. Past president and chief advisor on copyright for the Advertising Photographers of America (APA), President and CEO of the PLUS coalition, which is a licensing standards body. I trust his judgement and expertise. He stated;

In creating the work-made-for-hire statutes of the Copyright Act of 1976, both the Senate and the House purposefully removed the medium of photography from the proposed list of the types of work that may qualify as a work made for hire if created by an independent contractor. The end result was 9 enumerated types of work. Photography is not on the list. This list is in section 101 of the US copyright law. The history mentioned above can be found in the congressional record of the copyright act. Regardless of any contractual documents stating that a work is a work made for hire, if the work does not fit into one of the is not one of the 9 enumerated categories, AND if the client and employer do not agree in advance (before work commences) that the work will be a work made for hire, the work cannot be a work made for hire. The legal departments of advertising agencies know that a contract specifying that a contract specifying that a photograph for an advertisement will be a work made for hire will not stand up in federal court. But they include work for hire agreements in their contracts regardless, and almost without exception, they back up the work for hire terms with something like this: In the event that the work made for hire provisions of this contract are held to be invalid, photographer agrees to transfer ownership in the copyright to client. Some clients attempt to shoehorn photography into one of the 9 enumerated categories, such as contributions to a collective work. But the courts have frowned on that. See for example , in the case SHL Imaging v Artisan House, the court ruled that a photographer’s work could not be considered to be work for hire because photographs are not included in the § 101 list of subject matters permitting a work-for-hire agreement with independent contractors."

And in a very famous supreme court case, CCNV v Reid, involving a sculptor and work made for hire, the court’s ruling included this statement about photography, a quote from a statement by the Register of Copyrights: Artists and photographers are among the most vulnerable and poorly protected of all the beneficiaries of the copyright law, and it seems clear that, like serious composers and choreographers, they were not intended to be treated as 'employees' under the carefully negotiated definition in section 101."

[airfrogusmc]

Great info and I knew if you were a freelance photographer the photographer owned the rights but does that cover staff photograhers to?

[NZDoug]

www.blinkbid.com

[sfaust]

Great info and I knew if you were a freelance photographer the photographer owned the rights but does that cover staff photograhers to?

Read this part again;

In creating the work-made-for-hire statutes of the Copyright Act of 1976, both the Senate and the House purposefully removed the medium of photography from the proposed list of the types of work that may qualify as a work made for hire if created by an independent contractor. The end result was 9 enumerated types of work. Photography is not on the list. This list is in section 101 of the US copyright law. The history mentioned above can be found in the congressional record of the copyright act. Regardless of any contractual documents stating that a work is a work made for hire, if the work does not fit into one of the is not one of the 9 enumerated categories, AND if the client and employer do not agree in advance (before work commences) that the work will be a work made for hire, the work cannot be a work made for hire.

Since photography is not in the list of of categories, this pretty much says that if the photographer didn't sign a contract agreeing to a work for hire before the work was performed, the photographer still owns the rights.

Unless of course, they were signed away in another manner. Ie, the employee signed a intellectual property rights agreement when hired that gave the company any and all intellectual property created during the course of their work. But then in this case there is a good argument that taking photographs was not part of the work he was hired for, and it was done outside the scope of his regular employment. It can get sticky no matter which way you slice it, and its best to avoid those types of arguments that only seem to fill the lawyers pockets.

[airfrogusmc]

Thanks Stephen. So that means all those images I took as a young man for that high end portrait studio the copy right to those is mine? COOL...

[sfaust]

Did you sign any agreement to the contrary? If you didn't, thats the way I interpret what Jeff has said in the above. If you look up the references to the court cases, it also appears thats what the courts said as well.

In court thought for something like that, foggy memories, verbal agreements, he said she said, etc, it would be anything but cut and dried and a costly fight win or loose. But yea, if you setup the shot and pressed the button, and you didn't have an agreement, I firmly believe you do own the rights to the images.

Now if you were a staff photographer for a newspaper, magazine, etc, I would bet there is a clear cut stipulation in the contract that the newspaper owns all the rights to the images, and that contact would need to be signed prior to your starting work.

[airfrogusmc]

Did you sign any agreement to the contrary? If you didn't, thats the way I interpret what Jeff has said in the above. If you look up the references to the court cases, it also appears thats what the courts said as well.

In court thought for something like that, foggy memories, verbal agreements, he said she said, etc, it would be anything but cut and dried and a costly fight win or loose. But yea, if you setup the shot and pressed the button, and you didn't have an agreement, I firmly believe you do own the rights to the images.

Now if you were a staff photographer for a newspaper, magazine, etc, I would bet there is a clear cut stipulation in the contract that the newspaper owns all the rights to the images, and that contact would need to be signed prior to your starting work.

Nope I never signed anything. THANKS because I have believed all these years that he owned the rights.

[Annie C]

Seems I opened a bit of a can of worms here, but reading through all this I know I own the rights to the images, (I've never signed anything saying contary, infact there is nothing in my job description even mentioning I will do ANY Photographic work) I also know when it comes to my salary review in the new year I need to make a mention about it (tentivly of course). I dont expect much but it would be nice to in some way have it recognised and at least I now know if I did sometime ever leave, the rights to the images are mine.
Many thanks to eveyone who contributed to this.

[Box Brownie]

An interesting thread for sure.

But Annie seeing as you are in the UK and not knowing what if any your employment contract may say and/or what 'formal' instructions were 'agreed' for each session of the photog work. I suggest you consult the CAB or maybe arrange a fixed fee consultation with a solicitor who knows employment law and/or intellectual property law. Remember this forum is international and though it seems our USA cousins are protected the same terms/protection likely will not apply here in the UK.

Best of luck :)

[Annie C]

From my own investigation, as far as I can see it is the same but I'd already thought along the lines that if for any reason I 'needed' to use the copyright bit I'd check first! Nothing was ever agreed formal or informal, I was just asked did I think I could do it, I said yes and off I went! Like I said I dont intend on using the copyright bit but who knows what is around the corner and if I needed to I'd certainly check with a Solicitor first! .

[sfaust]

But Annie seeing as you are in the UK and not knowing what if ...

Good point Box Browine, I was speaking of US copyright only.

[RDKirk]

I needed to I'd certainly check with a Solicitor first! .

That term always tickles me. In the US, people who are charged with "soliciting" need lawyers.