SynergyatICG Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
I think it is just a different way of doing business, the licensing model vs. the "give them the files, use them as you want to" I guess you could call it.
Our model just evolved from the color house & prepress business in which we earn a specific fee for a service performed as agreed. Although we were of limited use & licensing, that didn't mesh well with the way our clients (and we) were accustomed to doing business together.
Most of our clients back then were manufacturers who would give us 200, 300 or more 4 x 5 transparencies or chromes at a time, to scan for catalogs, ads, collateral, or whatever. We scanned, proofed, they marked up the proofs, we edited, proofed, gave them back the files and proofs. Done deal.
So it was a natural progression for us, to have a truckload of products delivered to our shop, and the agency person or art director would spend a couple of weeks with us while we did the photography. Shoot, proof, mark up the proofs, edit, give them the files. Done deal. Just like the scanned files previously, no restrictions on use from us.
We have always considered images as the client's "assets" that should be cataloged & managed by us or them. We still do this for some clients we've had since the very early 1990's. I can't tell you how many times we have heard a newly hired art director, marketing director, etc. from one of our long term clients tell us they have NEVER worked for a company that had an such a well built image library, literally at their fingertips.
Guess who they call for photography services after their career has taken them to a new company.
Micky Bill wrote:
Ok, I stand corrected. In looking at your website I got the impression that photography was less of a part of the big picture than you say. I assumed ICG is a printing company that also does photography (and retouching, packaging, fulfillment, polo shirts, trade show setups, etc) but in reality it is mainly a photography company that does other things?
Since you added digital photography 18 years ago you/ICG are not a newcomer to the industry yet you say that you still don't get (or want to get) the usage/licensing model of pricing commercial photography. Don;t worry, after 15 years (or more) it is on the way out in many markets. With the internet there is no easy way to limit uses by a client. Once a picture is out there it's out there. Many clients are building up image libraries rather than doing shoots with a single intended use. A high day rate covers the many images created and the multiple uses...hopefully!
There also is a shift in trying to get a % of the entire ad buy but I think that may difficult in that agencies don't like people seeing behind the curtain and they don;t really know what they are going to do until they do it!
The way that US copyright law is applied the artist owns all rights to their images and sell/transfer reproduction rights to agencies or directly to the client. The cost reflects the use by the client, how valuable is it to the client. These things are determined by the size of the client, the area the pictures are used, how many images, and for how long. Also the market (trade or consumer) and usage realm (Adv, PR, Corporate, Editorial).
If a photographer works for a company, he/she probably is in a work for hire situation as they are an employee of the studio/company. The company can then do with the image what feels best without any additional $ to the photographer aka original artist.
Many photographers have a scale of fees, if a local company like "Tiny Toddler Day Care" wants to use a photo of a toddler in an ad in the local paper and online the cost will be a lot less than if "BigGiant Life Insurance" wants to use the same picture in worldwide ads and billboards and collateral and online...same photo different use and value to the client. How many eyeballs are seeing the image? A few for Tiny Toddler, a lot for Big Giant.
There is also work for hire in which the client buys all rights to all the pictures forever, this usually carries a high price tag.
For example-I do a lot of work directly with some major worldwide manufacturers, the work is limited to use in PR, Editorial, Social Media and Internally. This is done at a day rate / creative fee. Sometimes the ad agency or parts of the company outside of North America need a usage upgrade as they are re-purposing the images for wider use and distribution., outside of the original use. I then get paid more for the additional use. More eyes, more value.
I don;t think the photographer is expecting to share in the expected revenue more like getting a share of the expense of running the ads.
It's not the easiest thing to explain....Show more →
|