Pathetic Pay-Rates - I'm Appalled.

[TristanCardew]

Hopefully this is the right place to put this. I have to rant.

This month, an Australian mountain bike magazine, [R]evolution, published 7 of my photos, from a bunch I sent them. I was stoked to see the magazine, as I thought i'd only be getting one or two in, and it was my first time being published.

This, however, was completely marred by the fact I received a Contributor Purchase Order with the amount they are going to pay me - A measly $70! What the f*#k?!

The sizes of photos included:

- One full page shot
- 3 half page shots, one spreading onto the next page
- 1 one-quarter page shot
- 2 smaller than quarter page

I spoke to the editor a couple of days before receiving this, and he told me they're selling 14,000 copies of the mag each issue (it comes out quarterly), and from other sources I've found out they charge $1000 for a one page advertisement. How is it then they can pay me $10 per photo?!

I don't know what to do or say - They published my photos which I should be stoked about (and I am due to the fact it's my first time), but $70 for all that? That barely covers any of the costs it took to travel for those 3 months to get the photos...

:evil:

End rant.

[Mark1]

What they collect is totally disconnected from what they pay. Remember you are now part of why they have to charge $1000 a page.This is in any industry. But I agree that $10 a shot is low. I wonder if you will find they are only paying you for only one of the smaller shots, and mis-credited the others.

[P51Mstg]

Honestly, they are paying you that because there are lots of people out there shooting pics that want them published that they will work for free.

To ask a simple question, did you happen to ask what they pay before you sent them the pictures.............

I was at an airshow last year and got off 2 dozen frames of a jet hitting the runway at 500+MPH and disintergrating as well as making a Hollywood sized fireball. There was a newspaper guy standing next to me talking while I was shooting it (he had his mouth open). Once in a lifetime doesn't even begin to cover these shots. He asked me if he could publish the pics front page of a newspaper in California and put them out on the wire. I said sure, HOW MUCH?? He said no money but I'd get a credit that would help me get future business. I told him that I decline and out of respect to the pilot's family, I'll keep them private, which is what I did.

Sorry but money talks, for the right price he could have had the use of them for a short time............

Ask first and make the deal and then let them publish them. Sorry to hear of your experience.

Mark H

[cdifoto]

Bylines neither get you business, nor pay your bills.

[cosworth]

Add a zero. Send them a bill. Since they've gone to print (I assume) and the think you will just roll over it is wrong of them to do this and also wrong of you to not negotiate beforehand. That being said, bill them.

I know how much bike mags pay for good stuff. Literally, they lopped a zero off the usual rate.

[TristanCardew]

Thanks for your reponse, Mark(s).

Mark H - I know what you mean about working out price before-hand, although I wasn't told how many photos, if any, would be published. I had a feeling i'd have one or two printed, but after speaking to the editor when the magazine came out he told me he liked to keep it under wraps so as to suprise the photographers.

As for knowing what the pay rates were before they were published: The editors of this magazine also run a BMX magazine called 2020 - They're very similar mags, only one is BMX and one is MTB. I have the Contributor Guidlines for 2020, where it states:

2020BmxMagazine prides itself on paying everyone who contributes to the magazine. Too often publishers burn those who make the mag possible. We are a rider owned and operated business, and havent got mad cash backing us, but we pay for all contributions, big or small. Here's the lowdown:

Photography
- Cover $300
- Double Page Spread $120
- Full Page $60
- Half Page $30
- Quarter page or smaller $15

Obviously I can't be 100% sure whether the pay rates are the same for [R]evo and 2020, but i'm guessing they're similar...

I just feel as if $70 for 7 photos was a little steep - regardless of whether we had or hadn't made a deal to start with.

Tristan

[transcend]

Hopefully this is the right place to put this. I have to rant.

This month, an Australian mountain bike magazine, [R]evolution, published 7 of my photos, from a bunch I sent them. I was stoked to see the magazine, as I thought i'd only be getting one or two in, and it was my first time being published.

This, however, was completely marred by the fact I received a Contributor Purchase Order with the amount they are going to pay me - A measly $70! What the f*#k?!

The sizes of photos included:

- One full page shot
- 3 half page shots, one spreading onto the next page
- 1 one-quarter page shot
- 2 smaller than quarter page

I spoke to the editor a couple of days before receiving this, and he told me they're selling 14,000 copies of the mag each issue (it comes out quarterly), and from other sources I've found out they charge $1000 for a one page advertisement. How is it then they can pay me $10 per photo?!

I don't know what to do or say - They published my photos which I should be stoked about (and I am due to the fact it's my first time), but $70 for all that? That barely covers any of the costs it took to travel for those 3 months to get the photos...

:evil:

End rant.

I work full time in the cycling industry. I can assure you that you got screwed in one way or another. The going rate for mags is about $100-50 full page, $75-50 half page and less. Call the editor, as they may have "mis-billed" the accountant. "Mis-Billed" as in, "oh wait the photographer noticed, now we have to pay him properly."

This is why most MTB photogs that I know do not concentrate on editorial. It's a nice little bonus with covers and such, but it doesn't pay bills. $70 is absurd.

Did you not have their pay scale in advance? I have worked with revolution once and they paid better than that. I also worked for their competition in Oz (Clict) and they pay MUCH better. Look for the last issue of clicked, I have the cover (Minnaar, Green kit).

Cosworth, they didn't lop a full zero off, but they still lowballed him. An invoice will not help, editorial outlet sets the rates, not the photographer. Oz rates are lower than North America in general.

[TristanCardew]

I work full time in the cycling industry. I can assure you that you got screwed in one way or another. The going rate for mags is about $100-50 full page, $75-50 half page and less. Call the editor, as they may have "mis-billed" the accountant. "Mis-Billed" as in, "oh wait the photographer noticed, now we have to pay him properly."

This is why most MTB photogs that I know do not concentrate on editorial. It's a nice little bonus with covers and such, but it doesn't pay bills. $70 is absurd.

Did you not have their pay scale in advance? I have worked with revolution once and they paid better than that. I also worked for their competition in Oz (Clict) and they pay MUCH better. Look for the last issue of clicked, I have the cover (Minnaar, Green kit).

Cosworth, they didn't lop a full zero off, but they still lowballed him. An invoice will not help, editorial outlet sets the rates, not the photographer. Oz rates are lower than North America in general.

Thanks for your insight. Makes me more sure of the fact my skepticism is necessary and validated.

I've sent the accounts dude an email, and I may give the editor a call tomorrow, just asking for an explanation, which will hopefully resolve something.

I'm not expecting to live off this magazine, it just seems odd to pay $70 for 7 photos..especially of that size. As you said most MTB guys don't try to concentrate on editorial, although for me, having never been published, it's where i'd like to start. If nothing else at least my name will have been in a magazine or two.

Well done on getting cover of Clict! A great shot. A friend of mine, Chris Benny (Spoolin on POTN) got this months cover of [R]evolution, and again, the amount he was paid was minimal for the amount of work he put in. It's a bit disappointing really.

You don't need an assistant by any chance do you...? ;)

Thankyou for your responses - I shall update once I find out what's going on.

Tristan

[tim]

Even for the published rates I wouldn't bother. I stopped sending pics to the newspaper beacuse their pay rates were too low - $70 per usage, a bit more for a front page.

If you had no contract and no pay guidelines there's nothing you can do, except ask them to be reasonable.

[Wazza]

It's known mags in Australia and NZ don't pay as much as USA/UK
Seems in NZ the going rate for most mags, shooting things such as motorsport is around $10-20 a shot. Really makes you wonder why you spend $5k on a lens which will take many years to pay back at the mediocre rates people pay.

[leitch]

I'm actually in the same boat as Tristan. Same magazine, similar measly pay and the added bonus of no recognition of my contribution.

Simply, I think my approach will be somewhat different - next time the editor asks for my photos or for me to write an article, I'll simply decline. He can find someone else to lowball and I'll simply post my images on an internet forum for all to enjoy for free.

The money is not the biggest issue for me in this instance, it's the lack of consideration paid to those people who contribute to the magazine.

If you're going to treat your contractors poorly, don't expect them to keep supplying their work. I can live without the extra $100 per 3-month period.

[tcphoto1]

What kind of paperwork are you sending with the images? Are you sending small images to be reviewed or large files that are ready for publishing? If you do not care for the rate, respond with a counter offer. You have not granted them license to reproduce your images have you? You are in control of your work not them. You can tell them to stop the presses.

[transcend]

If $10-20 is the going rate now, I'd tell them to sod off. As it is, I have dealt with a few magazines down there and always get a MUCH better rate than that. Possibly they knew I will just tell them to take a hike if they ask for any cheaper than that. I just did a bulk deal with Clict (next issue, photographers special) and I got paid 10x that per image, for 12 images. They also ran an interview with me with links to my website etc.

Covers don't pay too well anywhere really (in the cycling industry), but are the only coverage I really enjoy getting taken to the cleaners on. $350-$550 is going rate for a cycling industry cover unless it is the cover of Mountain Bike (Rodale) or Velonews (7 Dogs).

[cosworth]

Cosworth, they didn't lop a full zero off

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/euphemism

They offered him a double digit number where he was entitled to a triple digit number. I'm too lazy to do the math on what the rates they publish would have added up to for him, but he really should've been paid $700 for work as such.

You do realize you and I are saying the same thing but just in different colours? :)

And I have been published in a bike mag, been employed by GT, Dyno etc. Oz is not paying the right rates. I recently sold a couple shots to Terrible One for far more than that and they are just publicity shots.

Lowballed for sure.

[Adam T]

I'm in the UK and work freelance for a leading cycling magazine, $10 per image is absurd; did you not agree a price before hand?

Adam

[JWright]

I contract for a monthly general aviation publication and they pay $10.00 per photo published and 15¢ a word if I write an article. I know this is peanuts but I look at it this way: I'm retired and it makes for a little extra cash to supplement my pensions. It's cool to be published on a regular basis and they help me obtain media credentials for various aviation related events. I covered the Red Bull Air Races here for them last year and will probably do so this year. I'm happy with the arrangement...

[sapearl]

Hi Tristan - sorry your hard work resulted in such a paltry sum. Obviously you know now that you can never assume you will be paid fairly unless you ask.

I think the reason the editor said "he liked to keep it under wraps so as to suprise the photographers" is because it's a really nasty surprise that would discourage future contributors. He was being intentionally misleading as well on behalf of his mag's budget.... certainly his prerogative, and seller beware.

At this point you can pursue things, continue to aggravate yourself and ruin the rest of the week. Or you can chalk it up to experience and not asking the right questions beforehand.... school of hard knocks. How much more time would you like to invest on a likely zero return?

......Mark H - I know what you mean about working out price before-hand, .......ted, but after speaking to the editor when the magazine came out he told me he liked to keep it under wraps so as to suprise the photographers.......

[ryant35]

I did a shoot for a magazine that had a circulation of 40k.

I got the cover, and 7 photos over 4 pages. They paid me $250 USD which if traffic didn't make the drive 3 hours it would have been worth it.

[Uhland]

Why does Peter Parker vs John Jonah Jameson come to mind when reading this thread?

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/marveldatabase/images/thumb/b/bf/Jameson2.jpg/120px-Jameson2.jpg

[canuck88]

Bylines neither get you business, nor pay your bills.

Totally agreed.

I shoot some local events for free, because I meet people and get exposure (as well as good Karma). I learned a while ago that photo credits in magazines or other print media mean crap all to my business .

[TristanCardew]

Ok, this is going to be a mammoth reponse..i'll try keep it reasonable.

First of all - Thankyou everyone for taking the time to write your experiences and perspectives.

If $10-20 is the going rate now, I'd tell them to sod off. As it is, I have dealt with a few magazines down there and always get a MUCH better rate than that. Possibly they knew I will just tell them to take a hike if they ask for any cheaper than that. I just did a bulk deal with Clict (next issue, photographers special) and I got paid 10x that per image, for 12 images. They also ran an interview with me with links to my website etc.

Covers don't pay too well anywhere really (in the cycling industry), but are the only coverage I really enjoy getting taken to the cleaners on. $350-$550 is going rate for a cycling industry cover unless it is the cover of Mountain Bike (Rodale) or Velonews (7 Dogs).

I'm starting to feel as if pay is relevant to the photographers name. As i've said, i'm new to this (it's my first time being published), and i'm not much of an established photographer - perhaps this could have affected how they paid me. Perhaps, even, they thought they were doing me a favour by being the first people to publish my shots, hence they thought any pay at all would suffice.

I don't really want to tell them to sod off right at the moment due to the fact I haven't been published in any other magazines, nor make any money, or get any recognition from anywhere else. If they're going to help me break into the industry I'd like to keep them happy - I just want to be paid a little more for my efforts. But it's interesting to hear the difference in pay rates between Clict and [R]evolution..i definitely need to submit some work to Clict. Thanks for your input. Just so you know, I think your photos are bloody tops!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/euphemism

They offered him a double digit number where he was entitled to a triple digit number. I'm too lazy to do the math on what the rates they publish would have added up to for him, but he really should've been paid $700 for work as such.

You do realize you and I are saying the same thing but just in different colours? :)

And I have been published in a bike mag, been employed by GT, Dyno etc. Oz is not paying the right rates. I recently sold a couple shots to Terrible One for far more than that and they are just publicity shots.

Lowballed for sure.

Thanks, Jason. Even if I wasn't paid $700 for all the shots, I was at least hoping for double or triple what I received. Perhaps Oz doesn't pay the right rates, but it seems as if, from Fraser's response, this magazine in particular is paying quite a lot lower than the industry standard.

I'm in the UK and work freelance for a leading cycling magazine, $10 per image is absurd; did you not agree a price before hand?

Adam

No, I wasn't too sure how to handle the money side of things when I first spoke to the editor. In fact, he came out and said that i'd probably make between $150 and $250 for my shots after the mag came out (before I knew how much I was being paid though..), which is why I was so shocked when I recieved a Contributor Purchase Order for $70. I agree $10 per image is absurd - especially for their size. This is why i'm enquiring further. Thanks for your response, Adam.

I contract for a monthly general aviation publication and they pay $10.00 per photo published and 15¢ a word if I write an article. I know this is peanuts but I look at it this way: I'm retired and it makes for a little extra cash to supplement my pensions. It's cool to be published on a regular basis and they help me obtain media credentials for various aviation related events. I covered the Red Bull Air Races here for them last year and will probably do so this year. I'm happy with the arrangement...

I accept you understand and abide by this, but it's difficult for me due to the fact i'm just starting out in my photographic career, whereas you're retired. If they had told me my shots would be worth $10 each I would have been a little bummed, but could have dealt with it. It was just such a surprise to see this measly sum on my Purchase Order.

I agree it's cool to be published on a regular basis, and I hope I can keep working for this magazine - I just also hope I can make a little more money from them in the future. Thankyou for the reply.

Hi Tristan - sorry your hard work resulted in such a paltry sum. Obviously you know now that you can never assume you will be paid fairly unless you ask.

I think the reason the editor said "he liked to keep it under wraps so as to suprise the photographers" is because it's a really nasty surprise that would discourage future contributors. He was being intentionally misleading as well on behalf of his mag's budget.... certainly his prerogative, and seller beware.

At this point you can pursue things, continue to aggravate yourself and ruin the rest of the week. Or you can chalk it up to experience and not asking the right questions beforehand.... school of hard knocks. How much more time would you like to invest on a likely zero return?

Thankyou. I guess I will eventually have to put it down to experience in the end, i'd just be interested to see what they say in response.

It's hard to know what to ask when you're first starting out. Do I go straight out and ask how much they're paying me, at the risk of sounding a little abrupt and..well..selfish. Or do I sit back, let it happen, and then ask afterwards when i'm not happy? In reality, if they'd paid $150, I would have been happy and wouldn't have said anything, because it's what I was expecting, but $70..?!

I did a shoot for a magazine that had a circulation of 40k.

I got the cover, and 7 photos over 4 pages. They paid me $250 USD which if traffic didn't make the drive 3 hours it would have been worth it.

To me it sounds as if you're quite content with that amount. I understand, although I feel you could or should have been paid more for that amount of photos. Cover, on a magazine that has a circulation of 40k, should definitely be worth that in itself?

Thanks for the reply.

Totally agreed.

I shoot some local events for free, because I meet people and get exposure (as well as good Karma). I learned a while ago that photo credits in magazines or other print media mean crap all to my business .

The thing is though, you have a business. I have nothing at the moment. I'm starting out - so yes, maybe I should be quiet and take the fact they printed my shots as great for exposure, but is it unacceptable to expect my fair share of payment? I know what you mean about good Karma, and perhaps shutting up from the start could have been better for me in the long run, but for the moment i'd like to find out what's going on - and whether my contribution in the future will be worthwhile.

Thankyou, again, everyone, for your responses.

[cosworth]

Tristan the only solution is that the person standing next to you needs to stop selling stuff for peanuts. If the magazines there have no one selling stuff to them for $10 then the price goes up. Can't beat supply and demand. If we could just get everyone to stop getting hyped on getting published and get hyped on getting paid...

I see SLRs everywhere now. It's like it's 1983 all over again.

[Zansho]

Tristan, you just illustrated why people who lowball their prices are hurting other photographers. People who work for free just to get exposure are hurting you as a working photographer, because the industry thinks they can expect the same of you. "Photographer A works for X amount of money, so why shouldn't you? I'm doing you a favor by getting you published!"

Additionally, a lot of people tend to think being a photographer is as simple as buying a DSLR, pointing it at something, and pressing a shutter button. There is so much more to photography than just that, as I'm sure everyone here knows. The issue is, you know what those photos are worth, especially to you. They're taking advantage of YOU. Possibly, they expected with you being a brand new working photog, they could take advantage of your naivety and scarper off with photos they should be paying decent money on.

I'd at the very least call the editor or their billing department and ask why they felt that your photos are only worth 10 dollars each, especially since you made the cover, and had multiple images in the magazine. I'd ask for at LEAST $500.00. Remember, 70 dollars isn't going to help you pay off your SLR lenses, camera upkeep, travel time, CF cards... need I go on?

[LBaldwin]

In a way one reason you got ripped was due to OUR in ability to teach you the ropes prior to your hanging. You see the education of noobs is critical to the industry. The reason editors pull this crap is because they get away with it time and time again.

There are several websites devoted to this subject both here in US and in nearly every country I can think of. EP is probably the biggest. The subject is irrelevvent, bicycles, airplanes, or widgets. They will try and lowball you as best they can. If you had only been to EP ask the right questions of professionals in the editorial field then you would have known to either leave them alone or get a better price.

$70 dollars is an insult, regardless of your status as a beginner, if you receive pay than you are a pro, no if's ands or butts.

So where did you get off track;

1. You did not have an written agreement of pricing in advance.
2. You did not have an agreement as to the usage and copyrights in advance
3. You did not have a copy of their space rates in advance.
4 You did not reasearch with other shooters to see what they were paid in advance of allowing to publish your images.
5. In other words the editor likes your shots so much they will print them in the rag and NOT pay you for them.

So what do you need to do?
Do a CODB to see what it costs you to go to work each day.
Use YOUR contract to execute all sales of images.
Maintain your copyrights at all times and never give them up
Set your rates and force them to pay your rates, if you have the shots they have to pay. Don't let you client set your pay rates. Even the dumbest plumber in the world knows better. (sorry to any dumb plumbers out there vbg>)

[ryant35]

To me it sounds as if you're quite content with that amount. I understand, although I feel you could or should have been paid more for that amount of photos. Cover, on a magazine that has a circulation of 40k, should definitely be worth that in itself?


I wasn't thrilled with the money, it was the chance to be published that was worth it. The opportunities that have come due to the connection with this magazine made it well worth it. I am currently a media photographer for an off-road race series, and that will amount to even more opportunities.

Here's the cover by the way:
http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k173/ryant35/1273484-large.jpg

[transcend]

A few things to address.

Tristan, thanks for the compliments. Being an established industry name may indeed help, no arguing that. "Breaking into the industry" being know as the guy with $10 photos will do more harm than taking your time. Good photos sell, no matter what. Submit your best stuff and it'll happen, don't get taken for a ride.

Cosworth, yes kids will give stuff away just to see their name in lights. No argument there. It will hurt for local mags and the lower end stuff. They simply need to fill their pages in between the ads. I won't deal with the majority of them.

However, I have no problem selling my stuff for good rates (editorial and commercial). Some of the jobs in this industry pay VERY well, as good or better than any other action sports industry. Remember that groups like Rodale own the majority of the popular mags. They pay for quality.

They also know they can depend on me with photos and coverage from every single major event, world wide. The local kid with camera may help them with local race coverage, but they cannot provide what I do. Make your work a commodity.

And final lesson: If your work is worth printing, it is worth paying full price for. No ifs, ands or buts. Your experience means nothing. If you can turn out work that they will put in their magazine (which they make money from through ads and sales) then you are generating them money. You should be compensated at full rate. Do you think they gave an advertiser a break because they had an "amateur's" photos in it? I didn't think so.

[sfaust]

This is really a great example of who the influx of new photographers has diluted the value of photography. It really is supply and demand, and it isn't going to get any better. As mentioned, when the other people around you stop giving their work away for peanuts, a worthless credit line, or just vanity, then the rates will go back up.

In this case, we have a magazine that is getting flooded with images from photographers that just want to be published, or see their name in print. With that kind of supply, I'm surprised those magazines are paying as much as they are. They could get away with much cheaper, but the quality would suffer a bit.

On the other side of the fence, I shoot for a couple magazines that have a constant need for industrial images. There isn't any one lined up next to me shooting the same subject. The magazine doesn't have a steady stream of people sending them images to get published. Its not exciting as sports, races, glamour, mountain biking, etc. But they pay very well based on half the circulation of the magazines mentioned above ($2K for covers, $500 to $1,000 for inside images, one-time use, re-prints not included).

The only real difference is that for one you have hordes of amateur photographers that shoot the subject matter just for fun, with some sending good usable images to the magazines to try to get published. The magazine is at a very distinct advantage. The other area is overlooked because its not sexy to shoot, no droves of amateurs lining up to shoot the subject matter, and thus the magazines have to assign the shoot to pros which they tend to create a a long term working relationship. The pros need to pay their overhead, mortgage, studio rent, insurance, etc, and thus charge accordingly.

If you want to work in the industry and actually get paid reasonably for your work, avoid the masses, the glitz and glamour subjects, and look for magazines that need good photography in subject areas that are less than appealing to amateurs. The rates will be much higher, and you'll have far less competition as well. A much better recipe for success.

TristanCardew, you mentioned that the editor said you'd receive $150-$250, and that was your agreement. Ask him why he published your images for less without your consent? It wasn't the agreement you two made! If you were in the US, I would say that you could advise him the 'revised' agreement is not acceptable to you, and thus are you are not granting him usage rights under the new proposed agreement. Seeing how you are in Australia, I don't know how different the copyright laws are. Either way, I would fight for the mid point between $150 and $250, and not back down. They should have informed you if it was going to be different before going to press to give you the option to decline. Since they didn't, they should be bound by their inital agreement.

Next time, make sure everything is in writing! I know people hear that over and over, and its important to say it again. This is an example of exactly why having it in writing is important.

I hope you get it all sorted out. Good luck, and congrats on getting them published even if the circumstances aren't ideal.

[JWright]

I'm really pretty sick of the argument that the reason editors are paying what they do is because some photographers are "low-balling" their rates. I don"t recall any laws being passed that require me to charge a certain amount for my images. If I want to sell images for $10.00, then that's my choice. Don't blame me if you can't get what you want for your images.

[sapearl]

I can certainly understand your viewpoint. Basically it's incumbent upon we photographers - the sellers - to negotiate the best possible price we can, or the kind of price that we want. It's all about negotiation and people skills.

My bread and butter is wedding and event work. I try to get the highest price I can for this area for the type of service I offer. By contrast, I am a volunteer at our local PBS station. A couple times each year I donate my photographic services to them gratis. I figure that's more money they have left over to buy the quality programming I enjoy.

I'm really pretty sick of the argument that the reason editors are paying what they do is because some photographers are "low-balling" their rates. ......... If I want to sell images for $10.00, then that's my choice. Don't blame me if you can't get what you want for your images.

[JWright]

I can certainly understand your viewpoint. Basically it's incumbent upon we photographers - the sellers - to negotiate the best possible price we can, or the kind of price that we want. It's all about negotiation and people skills.

My bread and butter is wedding and event work. I try to get the highest price I can for this area for the type of service I offer. By contrast, I am a volunteer at our local PBS station. A couple times each year I donate my photographic services to them gratis. I figure that's more money they have left over to buy the quality programming I enjoy.

I've done the same thing with one of the local museums. They paid me for a couple of jobs, but most of the work I did for them was as a volunteer.

[FlyingPhotog]

I'm really pretty sick of the argument that the reason editors are paying what they do is because some photographers are "low-balling" their rates. I don"t recall any laws being passed that require me to charge a certain amount for my images. If I want to sell images for $10.00, then that's my choice. Don't blame me if you can't get what you want for your images.

You've mentioned before, however, that you are supplimenting your retirement income with your photography.

It isn't your bread and butter, mortgage payment, utilities, child in school, etc...

I'm not a full-time working shooter, but I have been self-employed in the broadcasting industry for well over 20 years and I can tell you this:

Low Balling absolutely harms a market or industry. No if's and's or but's about it... It cheapens the work, it cheapens the people involved and it ultimately cheapens the final product.

When you hire an experienced professional (in any industry) you aren't paying them for their sweat, you're paying for their collective knowledge.

Just read a funny story regarding this the other day:

Seems New York city was having a problem with power outages in one particular area of the city and none of the city engineers could figure out why. They finally had to call in an expert for help. The hired gun looked over the substation for about a minute, produced a long screwdriver and tapped three times on one particular junction box. The power came on and they never had a problem again.

About six weeks later, the city got a bill for $10,000.02. The city controller called the "hired gun" and asked why he was billing for that exact ammount. His Reply:

"I only charged you $0.02 for the actual tapping...but the $10,000 is for knowing WHERE to tap..."

People, for God's sake, don't give your efforts away for nothing...

[JWright]

You've mentioned before, however, that you are supplimenting your retirement income with your photography.

It isn't your bread and butter, mortgage payment, utilities, child in school, etc...

I'm not a full-time working shooter, but I have been self-employed in the broadcasting industry for well over 20 years and I can tell you this:

Low Balling absolutely harms a market or industry. No if's and's or but's about it... It cheapens the work, it cheapens the people involved and it ultimately cheapens the final product.

When you hire an experienced professional (in any industry) you aren't paying them for their sweat, you're paying for their collective knowledge.

Just read a funny story regarding this the other day:

Seems New York city was having a problem with power outages in one particular area of the city and none of the city engineers could figure out why. They finally had to call in an expert for help. The hired gun looked over the substation for about a minute, produced a long screwdriver and tapped three times on one particular junction box. The power came on and they never had a problem again.

About six weeks later, the city got a bill for $10,000.02. The city controller called the "hired gun" and asked why he was billing for that exact ammount. His Reply:

"I only charged you $0.02 for the actual tapping...but the $10,000 is for knowing WHERE to tap..."

People, for God's sake, don't give your efforts away for nothing...

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but someone who's been in photography for, say, a year can't command the prices that someone who's been doing it for 20 years can. When I first started in the aerospace industry, I wasn't hired at the $20.00 an hour top of the pay scale. Know why? I didn't know squat... I was hired at the entry level wage. I had to work my way up to the top of the scale through the acquisition of knowledge, skill and experience. In other words I learned "where to tap..." There has to be an "entry-level" in every industry.

[FlyingPhotog]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but someone who's been in photography for, say, a year can't command the prices that someone who's been doing it for 20 years can. When I first started in the aerospace industry, I wasn't hired at the $20.00 an hour top of the pay scale. Know why? I didn't know squat... I was hired at the entry level wage. I had to work my way up to the top of the scale through the acquisition of knowledge, skill and experience. In other words I learned "where to tap..." There has to be an "entry-level" in every industry.

And I agree wholeheartedly with you JW, but "entry level" doesn't have to mean (and shouldn't mean) "Free..."

I've also spent a career learning "where to tap" but even before I was allowed to tap, when I only got to hold the screwdriver, I still got paid.

I guess it comes down to a matter of personal pride. If someone is ok with being completely taken advantage of, then by all means, go forth and be shat upon.

I just happen to think that myself as well as my efforts with a camera are worthy of consideration. More to the point, those who make their living as photographers also are worthy of respect and I'd no sooner undermine their ability to make a living as I would allow them to undermine mine.

I'm gonna put the soapbox away now.... ;)

[sfaust]

I'm really pretty sick of the argument that the reason editors are paying what they do is because some photographers are "low-balling" their rates. I don"t recall any laws being passed that require me to charge a certain amount for my images. If I want to sell images for $10.00, then that's my choice. Don't blame me if you can't get what you want for your images.

You may be sick of the argument, but that doesn't make the argument false either. It's a very well documented fact the influx of cheap photography into the market place, be it from low ballers, penny stock, or new photographers looking for a credit line, has severely depressed some segments of the market. Photographers are going to complain about it, and you might as well just get used to it. Just as its your right to charge what you want, or heck, even pay them to work, the photographers have a right to argue against it.

But thats a waste of time IMO. Smart business people will try to turn a market disadvantage it into an winning advantage. I'd give up on the low end of the market and let them fight over it, or plan on dominating that market. The low end of photography is turning into a commodity, so there is a opening for a business savvy person to dominate that commodity if they play their cards right. If not, its time to look up the ladder and see what it takes to make the next jump up.

Photographers need to move to different markets, find new and unique services, or look for other opportunities that have opened up by the change in the market. Its pointless to sit still and complain and something they are powerless to change. The falling prices aren't going to get better, especially in the editorial and retail markets. So we only have a few choices. Move up, change, drop out, or accept our new lower wages.

JWright, I do agree with you. No one can tell you what to charge! Its your business to do with as you see fit. If you choose to jump into the bottom end of the market, so be it. Do it to the best of your abilities, try to dominate your area, and be damned with the rest. But also get used to the fact you will have photographers complaining about you. You knew that going in, and don't have the power to change it. If you are sick of listening to the arguments, ignore it. You are just spinning your wheels complaining about the complaining.

[transcend]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but someone who's been in photography for, say, a year can't command the prices that someone who's been doing it for 20 years can. When I first started in the aerospace industry, I wasn't hired at the $20.00 an hour top of the pay scale. Know why? I didn't know squat... I was hired at the entry level wage. I had to work my way up to the top of the scale through the acquisition of knowledge, skill and experience. In other words I learned "where to tap..." There has to be an "entry-level" in every industry.

While I agree with this in MANY industries, I don't agree with you here. If you were being hired on contract to shoot something specific, I would agree (wedding, portrait, product in studio etc).

However, in this case you are simply being paid for work shot on spec. The work is clearly good enough to print as they keep coming back. If it is good enough for them to print, it's damn well good enough for them to pay a fair wage for!

[FlyingPhotog]

While I agree with this in MANY industries, I don't agree with you here. If you were being hired on contract to shoot something specific, I would agree (wedding, portrait, product in studio etc).

However, in this case you are simply being paid for work shot on spec. The work is clearly good enough to print as they keep coming back. If it is good enough for them to print, it's damn well good enough for them to pay a fair wage for!

I think this makes the case quite well...

Good enough to be printed = Good enough to be paid for.

Can't think of the last time I saw a masthead that read: "Due to the inferior nature of our content, we offer this magazine to our readership for free and accept no advertising dollars for publishing it."

;)

[Aaagogo]

This thread is very insightful and I've learned a lot from everyone's comments.

after reading all, IMO to OP, 2 good things came out from this deal

1st - you have a portfolio from the money you get, there's good and bad but if you know how to work it. bad things can be turned around.

2nd - you've received multiple extremely valuable inputs from different members at different levels of photography, read them, understand them, learn them and apply them.

[JWright]

You may be sick of the argument, but that doesn't make the argument false either. It's a very well documented fact the influx of cheap photography into the market place, be it from low ballers, penny stock, or new photographers looking for a credit line, has severely depressed some segments of the market. Photographers are going to complain about it, and you might as well just get used to it. Just as its your right to charge what you want, or heck, even pay them to work, the photographers have a right to argue against it.

But thats a waste of time IMO. Smart business people will try to turn a market disadvantage it into an winning advantage. I'd give up on the low end of the market and let them fight over it, or plan on dominating that market. The low end of photography is turning into a commodity, so there is a opening for a business savvy person to dominate that commodity if they play their cards right. If not, its time to look up the ladder and see what it takes to make the next jump up.

Photographers need to move to different markets, find new and unique services, or look for other opportunities that have opened up by the change in the market. Its pointless to sit still and complain and something they are powerless to change. The falling prices aren't going to get better, especially in the editorial and retail markets. So we only have a few choices. Move up, change, drop out, or accept our new lower wages.

JWright, I do agree with you. No one can tell you what to charge! Its your business to do with as you see fit. If you choose to jump into the bottom end of the market, so be it. Do it to the best of your abilities, try to dominate your area, and be damned with the rest. But also get used to the fact you will have photographers complaining about you. You knew that going in, and don't have the power to change it. If you are sick of listening to the arguments, ignore it. You are just spinning your wheels complaining about the complaining.

Your comments are some of the most insightful I've seen here in a long time. Excellent comments and something everyone should keep in mind. And you're right I'm probably spinning my wheels complaining about the complaining. I've had my rant... I'm good now.

[rsmedley]

Honestly, they are paying you that because there are lots of people out there shooting pics that want them published that they will work for free.

To ask a simple question, did you happen to ask what they pay before you sent them the pictures.............

I was at an airshow last year and got off 2 dozen frames of a jet hitting the runway at 500+MPH and disintergrating as well as making a Hollywood sized fireball. There was a newspaper guy standing next to me talking while I was shooting it (he had his mouth open). Once in a lifetime doesn't even begin to cover these shots. He asked me if he could publish the pics front page of a newspaper in California and put them out on the wire. I said sure, HOW MUCH?? He said no money but I'd get a credit that would help me get future business. I told him that I decline and out of respect to the pilot's family, I'll keep them private, which is what I did.

Sorry but money talks, for the right price he could have had the use of them for a short time............

Ask first and make the deal and then let them publish them. Sorry to hear of your experience.

Mark H

So, instead you got no money AND no credit. Did you sell these photos to anyone else?

[PhotosGuy]

TristanCardew, you mentioned that the editor said you'd receive $150-$250, and that was your agreement. Ask him why he published your images for less without your consent? It wasn't the agreement you two made! If you were in the US, I would say that you could advise him the 'revised' agreement is not acceptable to you, and thus are you are not granting him usage rights under the new proposed agreement. Seeing how you are in Australia, I don't know how different the copyright laws are. Either way, I would fight for the mid point between $150 and $250, and not back down. They should have informed you if it was going to be different before going to press to give you the option to decline. Since they didn't, they should be bound by their inital agreement. I agree. Did you give them the rights in writing yet?

http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/securitylawHome.nsf/Page/Publications_Intellectual_Property_A_Short_Guide_t o_Copyright#5

Australian Copyright Council links:
Freelance advice needed ASAP please!! (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=358815)

[LBaldwin]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but someone who's been in photography for, say, a year can't command the prices that someone who's been doing it for 20 years can. When I first started in the aerospace industry, I wasn't hired at the $20.00 an hour top of the pay scale. Know why? I didn't know squat... I was hired at the entry level wage. I had to work my way up to the top of the scale through the acquisition of knowledge, skill and experience. In other words I learned "where to tap..." There has to be an "entry-level" in every industry.

Respectfully I think that is old thinking, if a young photographer is good then they are good. The old guys club need not require - well, old guys. It used to be that way, but actually freelancers are not held to that standard. And I think that the standard itself was a way to keep newer photographers from charging a decent living wage. many new shooters think the same way "well I am a noob I cannot possibly chartge what an experienced and seasoned shooter can get. I say bull cookies:lol:. If you can shoot it you should be charging prevailing rates for those images as well. Many times an editor does not see the shooter, only the work, then what?

If we are discussing an in house job where seniority is the norm then sure that applies. But the freelance market is not held to that standard and the creative chops and selling ability are what should be the guiding factor.

Shoot to your ability, increase your rates as needed to keep your business afloat and do not, I repeat, do not undercut another shooter. You should be chosen for an assignment by your abilities with a camera, not how much yiu charge. I will let you know, fair and square if I find out a shooter has undercut me I will do everything in my power publically embarress them, within the photographic community. When you intentionallky leave cash on the table it makes that much harder for the next photographer to get a decent pay rate.

Gear prices go up, insurance goes up, gas and transport costs are through the roof, yet freelancers both experienced and noobs will give away the house for a stupid and eventually useless byline. They think that no one will ever find out. But the first person to rat you out - - is often your last client. "Well Les did the cover for 2hunnerred bux how come you can't?

[LBaldwin]

So, instead you got no money AND no credit. Did you sell these photos to anyone else?

Most A/C shooters will not sell crash shots where a fatality occured. I have sold crash shots of ruined A/C but will not if a death or serious injury is involved. That is why you rarely see excellent crash images pub'ed. You are quite likely to get shunned from press access, the A/C industry is a small one compared to other motorsports.