ADG Photography wrote:
TI had discounted my normal fee to such a ridiculously low level that even with minimal postshoot processing time, I was going to do well to clear $10 per hour for my time!!

Never, ever, ever, never, and ever again should you do something this dumb. If your rate is $10.00 per hour or $10,000.00 per hour, that's your rate and you don't change it for anyone including your mother. If you allow the integrity of your fee to be compromised the client will know they have you by the balls and they will squeeze every time. If they come back to you and tell you they can't afford you, walk away. I can't tell you how many times I've done this and a week later the client miraculously found the money and booked me. Their money problems are their's alone, not yours. You can make concessions on usage and buyouts and all manner of items in a quote, but if you comprimise fee, you are doomed.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:

Never, ever, ever, never, and ever again should you do something this dumb. If your rate is $10.00 per hour or $10,000.00 per hour, that's your rate and you don't change it for anyone including your mother. If you allow the integrity of your fee to be compromised the client will know they have you by the balls and they will squeeze every time. If they come back to you and tell you they can't afford you, walk away. I can't tell you how many times I've done this and a week later the client miraculously found the money and booked me. Their money problems are their's alone, not yours. You can make concessions on usage and buyouts and all manner of items in a quote, but if you comprimise fee, you are doomed.

I agree with you.  Except for the part about not discounting for your mother! LOL

I agreed to do this for such a low rate because I am trying to break into this area of photography. As a musician myself, doing so might not only open doors for my photography but for my music as well.  The guy in the first part of my story is a fairly well known musician, promotor, and manager in the Atlanta area. After he and I started talking about this, I read some things on the internet about him being difficult to work with. I was willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, but now that this has happened, maybe those stories were true.

I am going to take your advice and not negotiate my fee any more.

I appreciate the feedback, everybody.  Thanks!

ADG Photography wrote:
Now everybody is mad.  JEEZE!! 

Am I wrong to protect my work??

That's the price of doing business.
Don't loose any sleep over it and "flow" with it.
You did good, stand by your guns and don't let people take advantage of you.

Good luck

Eric Tragedy wrote:
I applaud you for sticking to your guns. I'm convinced the reason people think they can get away with ridiculous demands (as well as paying so little) is because too many photographers are willing to give away the farm just to get paid (a little) and/or published.

If people generally heard similar rates and requirements from everyone they talked to, they'd get the idea really quick. The Graphic Artists Guild Handbook : Pricing & Ethical Guidelines is one book that I've found to be helpful in setting rates for various projects.

Thanks.  I appreciate the book referral!

ADG Photography wrote:
Today has been a bad day!  LOL

I had a shoot booked to shoot a band in the studio as they put the finishing touches on their album.  I had discounted my normal fee to such a ridiculously low level that even with minimal postshoot processing time, I was going to do well to clear $10 per hour for my time!!  We agreed that the shoot was for photos for promotional use only! In exchange for the low fee I wanted the right to use the photos for self promotion myself in my own portfolios.  I also told him that I wanted a "by-line" and my copyright information any time the photos were publically displayed.  He said he had no problem with that.

So, today I sent him a contract that spelled out exactly what each party was allowed to do with the photos. He called me back and said he had "never heard of such a thing!". That he would not sign such a contract.  I tried to spell out to him that the document protected us both. He told me he didn't mind giving me credit for the photos, but would not put the copyright statement with it.  He also told me he was  an honorable person and would not use the photos for anything other than what we agreed.  My response was that without the contract, I had little recourse if he (or any of his assigns) did choose to go beyond what we discussed.   We could not come to an agreement, so we mutually decided to cancel the shoot.

Also, I had another missed opportunity.  A bride contacted me to potentialy shoot her wedding. She told me she was on a very limited budget and then went into what she wanted. She then said that she would have to have  the negatives and/or a CD of the full resolution images as part of the deal.  I told her good luck on finding any photographer worth his salt that would supply her with the negatives for a paultry sum. 

Now everybody is mad.  JEEZE!! 

Am I wrong to protect my work??

While I completely understand your desire to protect your work in the face of undeniable increasing pressure from the marketplace, as photographers, the legalistic negotiations we sometimes ask clients to endure are not helping us.

Two thoughts -- you are willing to work for less than $10 an hour, but you are fighting like your life depended on it for your usage rights? I think this is inconsistent. If this was U2 and you were David LaChappelle, that would be one thing, but they are a nobody band hiring a photog who is happy to clear $10 an hour. See how this inconsistency appears from the other side?

Second -- pick up a copy of Rolling Stone magazine. Notice how very few photo credits there are? What, you're smarter or better than the photogs who currently appear in Rolling Stone? What makes your photography worth getting a credit, when all these guys and girls aren't getting any?

All the guarantees of receiving credit and controlled usage rights are totally useless if you don't book the job. Some jobs just aren't worth booking -- you have to give up too much. But be careful of holding on to so much that it stops you from doing jobs you really should accept. There's a whole bunch of photographers whose work appears in Rolling Stone who are willing to accept terms you are rejecting. . . .

I'm not saying we should roll over and play dead when clients try to take advantage of us. But I think the "pry my rights from my cold dead hands" approach that many photographers insist we follow is sometimes unrealistic and counterproductive.

One last thought -- I disagree with the people who say, "never move on your price, never give a concession." Time and time again, I've found that people I have helped out come back to help ME out later in life. Good business relationships are built on friendship and trustworthiness. Sure, some people will take advantage of you. But more importantly, others with integrity will remember the favor you did for them, and they'll come back and reward you for that when you least expect it. And that is a beautiful thing!

To put it as crassly and nastily as I can -- some people will try to fuck you. That sucks. But if you treat all your customers like they are trying to fuck you -- they will.

Paul

Oliver Cole wrote:
A business client once told me that, "every dollar isn't a good dollar"

I have grown to understand the meaning of that statement as now you do. Problems with contracts BEFORE a shoot are nothing but a pre-curser to the problems that you are going to have after the shoot.

Oliver

There is much wisdom in that statement.  LOL

While I completely understand your desire to protect your work in the face of undeniable increasing pressure from the marketplace, as photographers, the legalistic negotiations we sometimes ask clients to endure are not helping us.

Two thoughts -- you are willing to work for less than $10 an hour, but you are fighting like your life depended on it for your usage rights? I think this is inconsistent. If this was U2 and you were David LaChappelle, that would be one thing, but they are a nobody band hiring a photog who is happy to clear $10 an hour. See how this inconsistency appears from the other side?

Second -- pick up a copy of Rolling Stone magazine. Notice how very few photo credits there are? What, you're smarter or better than the photogs who currently appear in Rolling Stone? What makes your photography worth getting a credit, when all these guys and girls aren't getting any?

All the guarantees of receiving credit and controlled usage rights are totally useless if you don't book the job. Some jobs just aren't worth booking -- you have to give up too much. But be careful of holding on to so much that it stops you from doing jobs you really should accept. There's a whole bunch of photographers whose work appears in Rolling Stone who are willing to accept terms you are rejecting. . . .

I'm not saying we should roll over and play dead when clients try to take advantage of us. But I think the "pry my rights from my cold dead hands" approach that many photographers insist we follow is sometimes unrealistic and counterproductive.

Paul

As I have stated, I had my reasons for trying to get this particular job. I don't totally disagree with what you are saying, but I am in agreement with many of the posters here--that is, we have a right to protect our rights and be paid more if that is likely to be compromised. The terms of the contract had already been agreed upon verbally. The whole thing began to fall apart when I tried to put that in writing.  Does that not pretty much demonstrate that I was trying to be taken advantage of here?  Sure sounds like it to me.

By the way, I'd be okay without a by-line if my photos were to be in Rolling Stone. LOL

ADG Photography wrote:

There is much wisdom in that statement.  LOL

Nah -- musicians are the worst businessmen in the world. Don't intrepret their lack of knowledge as a problem -- they just need to be educated in a nice way. There are definitely easier groups of clients to work with, but working with musicians does have a lot of pluses too.

And frankly, asking for things that just aren't done in a particular market is not helping the photographer. Lots of music publications don't give credit. If you MUST have credit, maybe you shouldn't be shooting musicians. . . .

ADG Photography wrote:
I told her good luck on finding any photographer worth his salt that would supply her with the negatives for a paultry sum.

I must have missed the part about being launched into a time warp back to the Renaissance

C R Photography wrote:

I must have missed the part about being launched into a time warp back to the Renaissance

LOL--yeah, I have a way with words sometimes.

ADG Photography wrote:
ROFL

I just got an anonymous email (john doe) from someone saying I should give up shooting bands and basically disrespecting all of the photographers here who chimed in to support me--calling us "internet photographers".  This person failed to grasp the situation, saying that "labels will never allow you to hold the images hostage".  Well dude, there is no label in this case. And, it was never agreed to be a "work-for-hire" situation.  I am aware what you say where "record labels" are concerned. 

But I am left wondering why it is that YOU are so angry?

oh good there's a label now too? i'm intrigued by the emailer's in-depth knowledge of what labels will and will not do. he/she/their label are welcomed to email me as well. i will be happy to instruct as to the way it is actually done.

bang bang photo wrote:
Let me give you a real-world example of the kind of flexibility I am talking about.

I shoot a lot of live concerts for various publications, and have a good working relationship with a couple key national promoters. If you've ever shot arena or shed shows, you know that at this level, sometimes the band publicists are complete jerks. I am sometimes presented with a waiver I must sign that completely ties my hands -- the photos are only usable for a single publication -- any other use, and I mean ANY other use is completely prohibited.

Now I could be a good little photographer union steward, and say, "this is OUTRAGEOUS! I refuse to agree to these terms." I'd be escorted out of the venue, and would never shoot an arena show for that promoter again.

On the other hand, not all bands have a waiver. And because of the agreement I have with the publications I shoot for, I own the images outright for many of the shows I shoot each month. Agreeing to sign the waiver for the hard-ass bands who require it gets me through the door for the bands who don't. If I was an uncompromising tough-guy about it, I'd never have to shoot the bands with waivers -- but I'd never get to shoot the bands without them either.

Negotiations require finesse. There's an art to knowing when to hold firm, and when to bend. If you bend over all the time. . . . you know what they'll do to you. If you never bend, you'll die a slow lonely death photographing your cat.

LOL--how'd you know I have a cat?

Actually, you bring up some good points.  Everybody keeps telling me that I am not tough enough most of the time..that I allow myself to be walked on. So, I have decided to stand firm on some things.  I may have to go back to groveling sometimes, and I will take your real-life situations into account when negotiating in the future.

Thanks for your input.

bang bang photo wrote:
Second -- pick up a copy of Rolling Stone magazine. Notice how very few photo credits there are?

Strictly speaking of Rolling Stone,
I believe that the magazine gives credit to the photographers it employs to shoot covers, features and editorials. If you see a picture without a credit something hinkey happened somewhere, such as a band supplying an image without credits.

When I shoot for the Tribune Co. I get a credit without asking because it is normal policy of theirs as well as most magazines I have experience with. I don't shoot a lot for magazines, so I'm not the end all when it comes to knowledge on the subject.

ADG Photography wrote:
The guy in the first part of my story is a fairly well known musician, promotor, and manager in the Atlanta area...

Ah, you're referring to the Atlanta area.  It all makes sense now.  I feel your pain.  This sounds very typical of people around here.  I don't normally tell such stories but I'll share this one experience:


I contacted a designer/boutique owner who posted a listing on a site that'll remain nameless.  The ad said "Photographer must be willing to accept prints as compensation."  Well, depending on the situation, that might be worth it so I sent a link to my site with a series of questions to get a feel for what she needed.

•What is the concept of the shoot?
•What type of clothing will be used?
•What kind of creative control/freedom will I be allowed?
•How many models will be used?
•Male and/or female?
•Ethnicities?
•What is the location?
•Indoor or outdoor?
•Will artificial lighting be required?
and
•What is your intended usage for these photos?

In her next email she only said "Ok, the date is xyz and the time is abc."  No acknowledgement whatsoever about the details.  So I reiterated how important it was for me to have those specs before making a commitment to a shoot.  Then she provided answers:

20 models.  4 to 6 images of each model.  Couturewear, swimsuits, business suits.  Female models all ethnicities.  Indoor & outdoor location.  Full creative control. 

Usage?

Web ad, print ad, billboard advertisements.  What the fuck?!  I was like, "Um, photographers get paid good money for shooting ad campaigns like this.  Daily rates and usage rights.  And they get copies of the ads they shoot anyway.  I can't do this on a trade basis because the benefits aren't balanced.  I'm probably not the photographer for you."

Of course the response I got was "Oh, but you'll get credit as the photographer!"  Oh, really?  Where, on a billboard?  No I won't.  Credited in a print ad?  No I won't.  I don't want credit, thanks or applause anyway... just throw money.  You're aren't going to tell me that you design clothing and sell them but you aren't willing to properly invest in the ad campaign that actually sells the clothes.

The sad part is, I was in no way surprised at the way it turned out especially since it was an online ad.

Jay Bowman wrote:

Ah, you're referring to the Atlanta area.  It all makes sense now.  I feel your pain.  This sounds very typical of people around here.  I don't normally tell such stories but I'll share this one experience:


I contacted a designer/boutique owner who posted a listing on a site that'll remain nameless.  The ad said "Photographer must be willing to accept prints as compensation."  Well, depending on the situation, that might be worth it so I sent a link to my site with a series of questions to get a feel for what she needed.

•What is the concept of the shoot?
•What type of clothing will be used?
•What kind of creative control/freedom will I be allowed?
•How many models will be used?
•Male and/or female?
•Ethnicities?
•What is the location?
•Indoor or outdoor?
•Will artificial lighting be required?
and
•What is your intended usage for these photos?

In her next email she only said "Ok, the date is xyz and the time is abc."  No acknowledgement whatsoever about the details.  So I reiterated how important it was for me to have those specs before making a commitment to a shoot.  Then she provided answers:

20 models.  4 to 6 images of each model.  Couturewear, swimsuits, business suits.  Female models all ethnicities.  Indoor & outdoor location.  Full creative control. 

Usage?

Web ad, print ad, bollboard advertisements.  What the fuck?!  I was like, "Um, photographers get pain good money for shooting ad campaigns like this.  Daily rates and usage rights.  And they get copies of the ads they shoot anyway.  I can't do this on a trade basis because the benefits aren't balanced.  I'm probably not the photographer for you."

Of course the response I got was "Oh, but you'll get credit as the photographer!"  Oh, really?  Where, on a billboard?  No I won't.  Credited in a print ad?  No I won't.  I don't want credit, thanks or applause anyway... just throw money.  You're aren't going to tell me that you design clothing and sell them but you aren't willing to properly invest in the ad campaign that actually sells the clothes.

The sad part is, I was in no way surprised at the way it turned out especially since it was an online ad.

I think you will go far in this field. You also did the right thing here. It has to be an equal payout for both sides. Tell her your sister needs an outfit and you will put her name on the tag. See how that flys.

bang bang photo wrote:
I have a copy of the current issue of RS right here, and I'd have to say that perhaps 1% of the editorial photos are credited. Yes, they do a great job crediting the cover, down to the makeup used, but most of the images throughout the book have no credit at all.

But my point isn't that credit doesn't happen, or that it's not good when it does -- but that cancelling a shoot because a client refuses to promise to credit every use may not be the wisest business decision.

Regards,
Paul

Ummm . no. All the editorial phots are credited, just in tiny type, vertically, along the far bottom right of each left-facing page.

dodgy photography wrote:

Ummm . no. All the editorial phots are credited, just in tiny type, vertically, along the far bottom right of each left-facing page.

You're right! That's the smallest credit I've ever seen -- but it IS there!

bang bang photo wrote:
While I completely understand your desire to protect your work in the face of undeniable increasing pressure from the marketplace, as photographers, the legalistic negotiations we sometimes ask clients to endure are not helping us.

Business is BUSINESS... contracts and agreements are a necessary part of that.

bang bang photo wrote:
Second -- pick up a copy of Rolling Stone magazine. Notice how very few photo credits there are? What, you're smarter or better than the photogs who currently appear in Rolling Stone? What makes your photography worth getting a credit, when all these guys and girls aren't getting any?      Paul

You must not be overly familiar with the shrink wrap delivery memoranda then... "Once opened you [client] shall have agreed to the following terms and conditions..." And usually one that says something along the lines of: "Photographer's credits shall be published in text the same size as related article body text and adjacent to the image(s) where it / they appear(s,) unless other means of providing credits are utilised within the publication; If photographer's credit(s) is / are not published the usage fee shall be x3 times the use fee stated above..."

-----

Now as to credits generally... the photographer is ENTITLED BY [US] LAW to a credit UNLESS that right is specifically wavered, in writing, for a specific usage.

See 106A (a)(1)(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity and 106A (e)(1) Transfer and Waiver ;

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a

17 USC Chap 1 s:106A(e)(1) The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

bang bang photo wrote:
While I completely understand your desire to protect your work in the face of undeniable increasing pressure from the marketplace, as photographers, the legalistic negotiations we sometimes ask clients to endure are not helping us.

Business is BUSINESS... contracts and agreements are a necessary part of that.


You must not be overly familiar with the shrink wrap delivery memoranda then... "Once opened you [client] shall have agreed to the following terms and conditions..." And usually one that says something along the lines of: "Photographer's credits shall be published in text the same size as related article body text and adjacent to the image(s) where it / they appear(s,) unless other means of providing credits are utilised within the publication; If photographer's credit(s) is / are not published the usage fee shall be x3 times the use fee stated above..."

-----

Now as to credits generally... the photographer is ENTITLED BY [US] LAW to a credit UNLESS that right is specifically wavered, in writing, for a specific usage.

See 106A (a)(1)(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity and 106A (e)(1) Transfer and Waiver ;

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a

17 USC Chap 1 s:106A(e)(1) The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified.

Studio36

That is useful information.  Thanks!

ADG Photography wrote:
Now as to credits generally... the photographer is ENTITLED BY [US] LAW to a credit UNLESS that right is specifically wavered, in writing, for a specific usage.

See 106A (a)(1)(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity and 106A (e)(1) Transfer and Waiver ;

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a

17 USC Chap 1 s:106A(e)(1) The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified.

Studio36

I disagree with your interpretation of this law. When I read it, my sense of it is that no one can stop an artist from claiming that they are the author of their own work -- and no one can claim to be author of a work they did not create. This is a far different thing from publishers being REQUIRED by law to give credit. There are many, many places where photography is used that do not give credit. Again, as I've said from the beginning of this thread, it is preferable to receive credit if possible, but to suggest that you should turn away work where no credit is guaranteed is going to be extremely career-limiting in my humble opinion.

I am not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV, so this isn't legal advice, and I could be completely wrong. But I believe you are confusing the RIGHT of the artist to claim authorship, with the OBLIGATION of another party to always identify the author of a work when publishing it. Two VERY different things, to me. It seems to me that if an obligation were the intention of the law, it would spell out exactly how that obligation must me met, but it is completely silent on that subject.

[Edit] I've done a little more reading on this subject -- it appears to me that the wording has purposely been kept a little hazy in US law -- there are areas of US Copyright law where some suggest that the US is not in full compliance with the Berne convention. It appears to me that this is an area where the US is not as progressive as European countries in enforcing moral rights of an artist.

In addition, the definition of "Visual Work" is very key here. Go up and read it in the definition sections of the code. You will find that "Visual Work" is very strictly defined as a piece of artistic work, not general commercial photography.

Paul

ADG Photography wrote:
... decided to cancel the shoot.

Perfect... next.

ADG Photography wrote:
I told her good luck on finding any photographer worth his salt that would supply her with the negatives for a paultry sum.

Perfect.

bang bang photo wrote:
Good business relationships are built on friendship and trustworthiness. Sure, some people will take advantage of you. But more importantly, others with integrity will remember the favor you did for them, and they'll come back and reward you for that when you least expect it.

Absolutely.

bang bang photo wrote:
I completely disagree with your interpretation of this law. The entire sense of it is that no one can stop an artist from claiming that they are the author of their own work -- and no one can claim to be author of a work they did not create. This is a far different thing from publishers being REQUIRED by law to give credit. There are many, many places where photography is used that do not give credit. Again, as I've said from the beginning of this thread, it is preferable to receive credit if possible, but to suggest that you should turn away work where no credit is guaranteed is going to be extremely career-limiting in my humble opinion.

I am not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV, so this isn't legal advice. But I can't see for the life of me how somebody could read that section of law and come to the conclusion that it means that a client is bound by law to give you credit unless you waive that right.

I believe you are fundamentally distorting the meaning, confusing the RIGHT of the artist to claim authorship, with the OBLIGATION of the client to identify the author of a work when publishing it. Two VERY different things.

Paul

You can disagree if you like but that is what it says: [1] The creator has a right to attribution; [2] that right can be wavered; [3] but if it is not wavered it can be enforced. Interestingly, the creator's right ["moral rights"], here and in the US, can never be sold or transferred; so even if the copyright is sold the creator [original author] can continue to insist on their credit even though they no longer own the copyright.

In transferring work for publication - I noted - the penalty to the user is to pay more for usage where no credit is given. That is entirely up to the buyer... take it or leave it.

One version of my delivery memoranda goes even further... if payment is NOT MADE AT ALL or within a stated time and publication goes ahead without payment... as some publications occasionally do because their terms are payment after publication... then they consent in advance to an infringement action being brought on account of the publication of the images. In other words, the use license is not active, or valid, UNTIL payment is made even though publication may already have occurred. No license [without payment] exists at all = infringement in / by the publication.

It's a tool that can be used to impose a penalty or enforce payment for material used, just as 106A is a tool that can be used in the appropriate place and time.

----

As an aside, in UK copyright law, by contrast to the US law, attribution [the so-called "moral rights"] MUST be deliberately "asserted" to be enforcable - you have to state that you license only on condition that a credit is given - and I do.

This [photography] is a BUSINESS and I treat it as a BUSINESS = generation of revenue = being able to eat and pay the bills.

Studio36