Licensing and what do you give your client on cd?

[petemc]

This is something I've been struggling with for months now. I've read books and articles and forums. Theres plenty of advice on what to charge, how to license but not what you actually hand over. Say someone hires me for a 1 hour shoot, I'd charge £50 + £50 processing fee. Then I'd hand over the shots on cd with a 2 year license for 1 media. Say 2 years worldwide license for use on their website. Anything extra has to be negotiated. But still, do I give them all the shots or 5 or what? So far I've given them all the best ones, or at least shown them the best and let them pick. I've seen some people charge £10 per shot as a sort of "film" fee or something. Obviously this would then limit the amount people get down to what they needed. This article does say to charge £15 per processed image. So this example job would be £100 for time, £15 per image they want to use.

Its much easier with prints because you know it will cost £xx so you can charge that. Its been something thats bugged me for months now. What DO I give them? What should I be giving them? I've seen another photographer charge an hourly rate and a digital processing fee per file.

 

[dazzajl]

My personal preference is to charge a rate based on time that covers all the work involved to a level I'm happy with. After that the client gets all the images (I select) from the job in full TIFF and reduced JPEG formats with full copyright.

This is much easier for me as I really don't want to be keeping track of peoples licences and who needs prodding to renew.

This might mean that my costs work out a little more than some other snapppers but the client knows it's a one time charge and then the images are theirs outright.

 

[petemc]

Um, full copyright? Thats insane. You know you're giving away all rights to your own photos there? It could mean that you can't post pictures here because you don't own them.

 

[Mohain]

when I buy photography I'll tell the photographer 'I need xx shots of yy' and I'll get a CD with just those xx shots, hi-res.

If I'm not happy I'll ask to see some more shots but I'd only expect to browse throught some low-res visuals and maybe pick another version for hi-res supply but to be honest I think I've only ever had to do this once in the 8 years of image purchasing. I'd trust the photograher to pic the best shots. I always negotiate all processing fees etc in with the initial charge too.

On ther otherhand a family member who had some 3 month old baby shots done in a studio was sent an internet link of a gallery of low-res watermaked shots to browse through to choose one/some for prints. However they procrastinated for so long they still haven't ordered any prints. The 'baby' is now 2 and they still haven't ordered anything.

 

[dazzajl]

Well while I do retain the right to use the images for my own purpose I don't see them as my photos.

I take them, I get paid and I send them on their way. It's no different to me than being a tailor or a baker. Once the product has been bought, it's taken away and used by the customer.

I've been shooting images for a fair while now and the amount of hassle involved in keeping track of ongoing ownership changes and all the admin involved would be far less profitable to me than spending the time shooting new images.

 

[petemc]

when I buy photography I'll tell the photographer 'I need xx shots of yy' and I'll get a CD with just those xx shots, hi-res.

If I'm not happy I'll ask to see some more shots but I'd only expect to browse throught some low-res visuals and maybe pick another version for hi-res supply but to be honest I think I've only ever had to do this once in the 8 years of image purchasing. I'd trust the photograher to pic the best shots. I always negotiate all processing fees etc in with the initial charge too.

Yeah exactly. Thats basically what I do now. I'll do the shoot, and then make a gallery of the shots that I consider to be the best ones. I'll let them pick which shots they then need, because I don't know whats best for their idea. Then I give them a cd with the hires images on. But from what I'm reading, some people charge £10-25 per shot they ask for as a sort of processing charge.

On ther otherhand a family member who had some 3 month old baby shots done in a studio was sent an internet link of a gallery of low-res watermaked shots to browse through to choose one/some for prints. However they procrastinated for so long they still haven't ordered any prints. The 'baby' is now 2 and they still haven't ordered anything.

Theres that side of things, but I would probably do the same as I would want to make sure the client got what they wanted rather than give them a cd of shots that I felt were nice.

Well while I do retain the right to use the images for my own purpose I don't see them as my photos.

How? You've given away copyright so they're not your photos. The client could turn around and say "Take them down." You'd have to comply. Under UK copyright law any photo you take *IS* your photo.

I take them, I get paid and I send them on their way. It's no different to me than being a tailor or a baker. Once the product has been bought, it's taken away and used by the customer.

Its very different, and I've got to say that you're the first person I've ever heard of treat photography this way. Its kinda weird If you look at the world so many industries license their products. Its normal. Windows OS is licensed not bought by the consumer. As is Photoshop, Lightroom, and so on.

I've been shooting images for a fair while now and the amount of hassle involved in keeping track of ongoing ownership changes and all the admin involved would be far less profitable to me than spending the time shooting new images.

Grant them a royalty free license then. You retain copyright and they get to use the images as they see fit.

 

[Mohain]

Then I give them a cd with the hires images on. But from what I'm reading, some people charge £10-25 per shot they ask for as a sort of processing charge.

I really hate getting lots of 'extras' on the end of a bill and this can really screw around with budgets/profit margins. If I'm going to buy any photography I make sure that the photographer knows the final cost must include all processing. I've never had a photographer refuse yet.

 

[dazzajl]

I've got to say that you're the first person I've ever heard of treat photography this way. Its kinda weird

It is but then that's me, kinda weird.

For me it's simple, I like to take pictures and I run my business to allow me to do this as much as possible. I really don't want to get drawn into more admin than is absolutley essential. I know most people work differently but that really doesn't matter to me. I just work the way I like to.

As to how can I use the images? As you say, the copyright is mine to give or keep, so I can give them away under any terms I see fit. The only one I impose is that I get to retain use for my own promotion/purposes.

 

[petemc]

I really hate getting lots of 'extras' on the end of a bill and this can really screw around with budgets/profit margins. If I'm going to buy any photography I make sure that the photographer knows the final cost must include all processing. I've never had a photographer refuse yet.

Yeah, its the way I've been doing it. Client has £600 to spend. I say, ok it'll be £600. Happy days. When its done I hand over a CD of images they've picked to use. Don't really want to say after the job that its then £10 per photo on top. Where do they then find the money? Photography is a complete mindfield. There's no set way of charging it seems. Everyone I've dealt with seems to expect different things. One client wanted everything, unedited to use on everything they wanted to for eternity.

For me it's simple, I like to take pictures and I run my business to allow me to do this as much as possible. I really don't want to get drawn into more admin than is absolutley essential. I know most people work differently but that really doesn't matter to me. I just work the way I like to.

I like to take pictures too, but I know that its by licensing the images that I get to eat. What if you do a job for someone and get a killer image that could give you £1000/month but you can't cos you gave the copyright away? Personally I feel that there is a way you can keep copyright and let the client use the images. Royalty free Or just tell them, use it as you see fit but you retain copyright.

 

[dazzajl]

What if you do a job for someone and get a killer image that could give you £1000/month but you can't cos you gave the copyright away?

I know what you're saying but I base my business on what ares, not what ifs. The whole point is I don't want to work in a minefield and I'd rather be happy than chase the ££'s.

There may be images out there that would have earnt me an extra £1000 or whatever a month but as long as I have clients that come back to me time after time because they feel I'm the best and trust me to get just the images they need. I'll carry on keeping things as simple as I can.

I may run a business but really I'm just an artist and I like to shoot. You may well end up with a happier accountant but while you're burried up to your neck in paperwork and chasing licence renewals a day, two, three or four a month, I'll be out there looking through the ground glass.

 

[petemc]

You may well end up with a happier accountant but while you're burried up to your neck in paperwork and chasing licence renewals a day, two, three or four a month, I'll be out there looking through the ground glass.

Hasn't happened yet Anyway, back on topic. What do people give their clients? Fixed rate and any images they want?

 

[pxl8]

Pete a little context might help here. For non-commercial stuff I charge £10 per image on the CD will limited rights for personal use. For commercial work I charge per image depending on the usage - brochure, advertising, etc. These charges are in addition to my time for the shoot/processing. Either way there's an additional charge for each digital image the client wants.

For some commercial clients, esp. small local business I sometimes do a bundle where they pay a flat fee for time + images with use restricted to promotional or similar. This works out more expensive up front but cheaper if, in the long run, they end up using the images for several things such as web/adverts/leaflets. So it's a gamble for both sides but generally they go for it.

 

[petemc]

Pete a little context might help here. For non-commercial stuff I charge £10 per image on the CD will limited rights for personal use. For commercial work I charge per image depending on the usage - brochure, advertising, etc. These charges are in addition to my time for the shoot/processing. Either way there's an additional charge for each digital image the client wants.

See thats sort of like what I've heard from some people, but again different to this book, Beyond the lens.

The original negotiated commission fee normally includes the following;
1 Year:
UK or any single country - any two media
2 Years:
UK or any single country - any one media...

In the UK, the photographer's fee normally includes the first use of the photographs, but the duration, media and territory are frequently negotiated within this fee.

Then of course you have the BUR, Base Usage Rate, which is even more complex. You can read all about that in this pdf by the AOP. When I start reading all these things it makes my head hurt and I can't work out how to charge people correctly. I have my day rate sorted. I have my portrait prices and prints sorted. Its licensing really thats such a headache. Stock is easy, I use Alamy's calculator.

 

[Byker28i]

Slightly different field, but on Trackdays where there is a photographer they usually charge £35 for a cd of images of your vehicle. The number of images usually depends on your tracktime.

One photographer and another person editing, cataloging the photo's is usual. Then then just burn the cd of images for you.

 

[petemc]

Thats incredibly cheap. The photographer will loose out on any print sales then.

 

[pxl8]

I think the example formula works but you need to have much higher fees to compensate and is probably more geared towards richer markets such as national ad campaigns, etc. where you'd be charging thousands a day rather than hundreds.

 

[Byker28i]

Thats incredibly cheap. The photographer will loose out on any print sales then.

Hum, last time there were about 15 images of my car, 3 posed with a Cobra gunship helicopter so I was tempted.

If there are 40 people on a trackday and you sell half of them a cd (not an unknown quantity) then that's not a bad days work?

 

[Ross]

I don't know about other circuits but Brands Hatch certainly charges the trackday photographer for exclusive rights to sell their photos, regardless of any sales they make. And it isn't cheap. So not the money spinner you might imagine

 

[petemc]

I think the example formula works but you need to have much higher fees to compensate and is probably more geared towards richer markets such as national ad campaigns, etc. where you'd be charging thousands a day rather than hundreds.

Is that relating to my BUR stuff?

If there are 40 people on a trackday and you sell half of them a cd (not an unknown quantity) then that's not a bad days work?

Technically no. But you could get far more sales from taking print orders. £35 / photo is much nicer than £35 for a cd of photos. You'll never get any more orders then. CD with a gallery on and contact details to buy more prints.

 

[Byker28i]

Yup, some people put a gallery up n a website and sell prints from there. I'm inclined to agree that would result in more print sales.

 

[pxl8]

Is that relating to my BUR stuff?

Yes, from the quick scan of the pdf the idea seems to be agree a figure for the job which includes a certain level of usage of the shots and further or other uses are based on a percentage of the original fee. It's basically the same as the bundle deal I talked about for small/local business clients. The initial spend is higher but it works out cheaper than buying multiple licences over a period of time.