| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Why do photographers negotiate make bad deals?
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
 |
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 3:38 AM on 11.24.07 |
->> Can someone tell me why photographers negotiate themselves into bad deals?
I didn't want to hijack the thread (http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=27278)
that led to this one.
In that thread Jeff Mills wrote in regards freelancing:
"Paper wins as they not only get editoral coverage but also future sales, parents still win because they don't care who they buy from they just want the photos, only I, the photographer doesn't get any additional benifit. "
I submit Jeff you don't benefit because when you enter the arrangement and operate in a business model that was not designed for you to benefit. Based on what you wrote you in the previous thread, you simply negotiated away way too much, way too much of your IP rights and along with the ability to license and relicense the images you create.
Unless a photographer charges accordingly, not having the right to relicense images is simply not a healthy business decision in the long run.
The decision to work with a client should based on rights, licensing and future value. Today, I know very few people who look at future value of an image ~ most only care how much money it will put in their pocket now. I talk to college kids who are young, talented shooters and they don't really seem to care about rights. As for licensing - what's that?
In this case it appears your newspaper client, in exchange for a mere $75 per assignment (?), receives unlimited and exclusive use (or shared rights) of a submitted image as well as electronic viewing rights (web display) and reprints rights.
Sorry, dude. That is a terrible deal. Honestly, it is no wonder you aren't benefiting.
With the exception of one daily, all of our papers may download images for one-time use only. If they wish to re-publish the image in another edition or week or editorial product the pay another licensing fee. There is no exclusivity. Photo from a game or event can run in as many papers and any who download the image and run the same day or week.
Clients papers are restricted from selling reprints, we take care that when there is an order. Our focus is on licensing. Looking for and creating opportunities for images to be licensed multiple times. ie: for use in tabs, year-end reviews, season previews and individualized personalized coffee table books. Each use requires a licensing fee. I like the benefits we derive from this business model. This is why I stress to photographers the importance of controlling and keeping their image rights. |
|
Kevin M. Cox, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Galveston / Houston | TX | US | Posted: 12:48 PM on 11.24.07 |
->> Thanks for starting this spin-off thread Clark. I had the exact same thought when I read Jeff's post:
--------------
"I shoot for a paper that puts the images up for sale online and I could very well be selling $500 per game with the stuff I shoot and I don't see a dime from it."
--------------
I'm very surprised that any freelancer would be letting their client publication sell reprints. It sounds like you've signed a $75 work-for-hire arrangement. In my opinion being able to re-license images and sell reprints is crucial for making a $75 editorial assignment profitable.
I'm not trying to be rude or disrespectful (I don't know all the details or how things work in Ohio), but "that's crazy" popped into my head when I read that.
To answer another question:
-------------
Do any of you get a percentage of what your publication sells ?
-------------
At my last paper where I was required to use my own personal gear as a staffer, I kept 100% of reprint sales as compensation. At that job a policy like the IHSA one being discussed in the other thread would have directly cut into my calculated compensation.
As a staffer my current paper sells reprints of football photos. And while I don't see a direct cut, in the long run it helps us get gear (I'm provided multiple bodies plus glass up to 400) and pay my salary plus benefits. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 3:37 PM on 11.24.07 |
->> This is why I keep screaming that photojournalists in college should be taking business courses instead of just photo courses. You are lambs for the slaughter if you don't have some business background.
When I worked as a tech products representative for Polaroid in the late 70s, I called on photography studios (along with medical, industrial, forensic and just about anything else...) . The guy with the biggest number of studios,doing the most weddings, was, at best, a decent photographer. His other shooters were okay. But the guy had GREAT business skills. Owned his own lab, and made a ton of money because his business skills were sharp.
A good friend of mine could outshoot him any day of the week. It wasn't until he married his current wife and turned the operations part of the business over to her that he became really successful.
Take business law. Take accounting and marketing...lots of marketing. Being better doesn't insure success. Sony's beta was a better format, but that didn't stop VHS from kicking it's collective a$$, did it?
To play the game of business, you need to know the rules. That's what business courses teach - the rules. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 5:23 PM on 11.26.07 |
->> This thread slipped past my radar over the holiday weekend so I apologize for not getting back to it sooner. (thanks Kevin for bringing it to my attention)
Given the dicussions in other threads relating to the IHSA today as well as newspaper "reprints" in general seemingly on the rise all over from what I've been hearing from people, this issue seems like its going to be a major issue facing photographers in times to come.
For the sake of discussion in this thread lets simply assume that newspapers will be allowed to sell reprints et al online. We don't need to get into if they should or shouldn't, thats a different thread.
In this one lets just continue to examine how such practices directly affects our own bottom lines and compensation.
Is anyone going to take a stand and say that they need additional compensation if their images are being sold ?
How would you feel about it if your publication gave you a share of the sales ?
Have you ever been asked to shoot more "sellable" images by an editor over game action since your publication has offered online sales ?
What about if the paper doesn't sell the images but freely distributes them to readers for personal use as a community service, what are your thoughts on that ? |
|
Kevin M. Cox, Photographer, Assistant
|
Galveston / Houston | TX | US | Posted: 5:33 PM on 11.26.07 |
->> In the follow-up thread Jeff asked additional questions that seem best suited to answer here:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=27293#43
-----------JEFF ASKED:-------------
>> "One other question I haven't seen anyone answer yet, is are any other press
>> photographer who's papers are selling online photo's happy about it ?
>>
>> If your getting a percent of the sales then maybe its a nice bonus on your
>> check sure, but how many people are seeing a cut of the sales ?
>>
>> For exactly the same money I got paid in previous years I now have to shoot
>> more images per game, and have a much earlier deadline to accommodate the
>> online sales potential all so someone else can make more money.
>>
>> I just can't see how any photographer would be in favor of that."
---------------------
As I mentioned above I am a staff photographer. I wish I was getting a cut of the reprint sales. I'm not one who will turn down any extra money (a raise, a bonus or a % cut) that my employer wants to give me. However I'm not upset that they are selling reprints. As I mentioned they provide me a salary, benefits, insurance (health, dental, life) and 401K not to mention three computers plus plenty of camera equipment.
-------JEFF SAID:---------
>> "Pretty standard practice right ? Want to use the images for more things,
>> pay more. But in this situation the images are used for more things but I
>> don't see anymore money."
----------------
Again, not trying to be rude, but that is totally your fault. When they started wanting more images for more uses you should have asked for more money. If they didn't want to pay then you should have walked away. In my former days as a fulltime freelancer it was explicitly stated that all requests for reprints must be redirected to me. I even included that in the IPTC data of submitted images as a reminder. I had no problems with papers from all over the state of Texas honoring that provision as I would routinely receive new requests forwarded to me by the papers months after I shot games for them.
-------JEFF ASKED:---------
>> "So if your now asked to double the number of images you submit per game and
>> upload them earlier for no additional compensation or cut of sales, how
>> would you feel about it ?"
----------------
I would have negotiated for additional pay. If they refused I would have said "NO" and kept shooting the old way. If they didn't like that option I would have walked away. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 5:59 PM on 11.26.07 |
->> I'll answer your questions from both a freelancers and staffer's perspective......
Is anyone going to take a stand and say that they need additional compensation if their images are being sold ?
F> Yes, additional compensation will be required. Our agreement only covers online display and one time print usage. Either a flat fee or a % of the sales would be necessary. Either way I need to be compensated for the additional usage.
S> I don't have any say at my paper. It is up to our union to lobby for additional compensation. It would be nice ....am I not holding my breath.
How would you feel about it if your publication gave you a share of the sales ?
F> That's a requirement since I have not given up all or only part of those rights. A flat fee per image or flat fee per assignment would be suitable compensation.
S> That would be great. Am I blue in the face yet... I really shouldn't be holding my breath given the state of the industry these days.
Have you ever been asked to shoot more "sellable" images by an editor over game action since your publication has offered online sales ?
F> No. But any client is more than welcome to license additional images or act as my agent.
S> No. At our paper print sales are not the focus of our business (yet?)
S1>Yes. I'm okay with it. I'm here to benefit my employer with my skill and talent.
S2>Yeah and it sucks. Especially when I have to do two schools 20 minutes apart on a Friday night. It takes 10 minutes to get out of each of the parking lots.
What about if the paper doesn't sell the images but freely distributes them to readers for personal use as a community service, what are your thoughts on that ?
F> I'm all for it as long as we reach an agreement on how I can be compensated for the distribution since I will not be able to generate any additional sales from those images.
S> It doesn't matter to me I get paid the same whether the print them, sell them or give them away. Do I want trade my benefits, a regular paycheck and 7.5 hour days to go freelance...naw, no thank you. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|