Did a shoot for a local based company who's taking there products national. They asked my to price a full rights license on the images. They gross between 750k-1M in sales, and growing. The images would be used in national press release, national ad campaign, new website, social media, and anything else they want according to the email I received. any help would be appreciated.

An appropriate licensing fee for an Advertising Campaign would be based upon their Ad Space budget. You would quote roughly 5-10% of that budget with the lower percentage on the highest end. You will also need to limit the term of the license from one to three years.

Do not sell the copyright. If necessary, grant them broad rights (assuming they are willing to pay appropriately), but do not sell the copyright. You will likely regret it later.

<Chas>

Thanks for the advise. In the time from the original post until now, I was contacted again. I gave them a price with basically shared rights, they said "no thanks" I guess someone came along and said they'd shoot it and license it for $250 total. At least I was already paid for the fist part.

The hardest part of being a Professional seems to be saying no. You will meet a lot of potential Clients that simply do not have the budget or do not put the same value on images.

tcphoto, they definitely don't put the same value on them. I was told its cheaper for them to have reshot than to pay licensing.

pacman642 wrote:
I guess someone came along and said they'd shoot it and license it for $250 total.

Makes it tougher to sell milk ... when people are giving away cows.

RustyBug wrote:
pacman642 wrote:
I guess someone came along and said they'd shoot it and license it for $250 total.

Makes it tougher to sell milk ... when people are giving away cows.


Couldn't agree more, turns out this other photog had already shot the products and couldn't achieve the look the company wanted. But his/her price I guess they can live with lesser shots.

RustyBug wrote:
pacman642 wrote:
I guess someone came along and said they'd shoot it and license it for $250 total.

Makes it tougher to sell milk ... when people are giving away milk.


Fixed that or you.

Dave ... could you clarify

I understand providing a superior product/service that commands a value different from lesser priced/valued/quality/etc. workmanship. I also understand the need to be able to convey that value to others.

What would the OP do in his scenario with a competitor giving away the rights as a "bargain" price to offset the lesser quality workmanship. How does the OP fix that ... or how does the OP fix himself relative to that? It essentially sounds like the client was expecting a "work for hire", and that it possibly lacked clarification up front as to structure. Other than that ... I'm

Could you expand on your "Fixed that or you." ... I'm a little remiss to follow on this one. Thanks.

tcphoto wrote:
An appropriate licensing fee for an Advertising Campaign would be based upon their Ad Space budget. You would quote roughly 5-10% of that budget with the lower percentage on the highest end. You will also need to limit the term of the license from one to three years.


Do you have any tips on how to get that info from a client? Most of the clients have don't really know exactly what their ad buy is going to be. They often have a vague idea but things change. I also don't know many clients who are willing to share such information with a vendor.

How do you do it? Do you ask the art buyer or account weasel I mean account exec?

RustyBug wrote:
Dave ... could you clarify

You are trying to sell something that others are giving away for free.

Your original statement would read like it's hard to sell photography when you can get a camera for free. Doesn't make much sense.

I was hired to see if I could achieve a certain look, and I did. I gave them a price on shooting the images up front they were uncertain on how they were going to use the images, or presented themselves that way. At the end I told them to refer to the contract and that ownership and copyrights were the property of the photographer, me, until they can negotiate based on usage. I was very clear on both fronts, at which time they indicated they wanted all the images to use as they see fit at any time. I priced them accordingly and they said "no thanks"

How can one price a job without details of how the images are to be used? What is their Ad Space budget? How long will the Campaign run? Consumer Magazine, Trade Magazine, Newspapers, Billboards, Vehicle Wraps, Bus Kiosks, Online Ads? How many insertions, 1/4 to full page ads? Nearly every Corporation will be able to answer these questions or give you a list of the minimum use in order to allow you to write an estimate and they can come back to you for additional use. You can appear as though you're a Professional by asking appropriate questions or as an amateur if you don't ask about their needs.

Of course, there are small businesses that are flying by the seat of their pants and for those you need to be very specific about their license. Otherwise, they will assume that they have unlimited usage and will plead ignorance when it comes to Copyright Law. If they would rather reshoot the job for $250 and have unlimited use, I would not think twice about losing their phone number and be thankful that I received payment in full for the images I shot for them. I would also be interested in seeing the images that replaced mine, do they look too similar to mine or do they come up with their own concept. The business of Photography is about delivering well thought through images, being pleasant to work with and protecting your Intellectual Property.

Just because you were given a cow (which contains the potential to create good milk) doesn't mean that it produces good milk. It isn't until people realize that the reason the cow was "given" in the package was because it just isn't that good of a milk producer does the value of milk vs. cow begin to reveal itself.

Sadly, until the time passes when they realize that it doesn't produce the same as the better milk that was offered, the bargain of the free cow suddenly isn't the bargain it was first thought to be.

Not much different from planting cheap seed, and expecting a great crop. The images here are being used to assist with growth. Using bad seed, sour milk or lesser compelling imagery can be rather folly. Convincing someone that they are better off paying for the better product ... in the face of someone offering them more products is tougher than when the quantity of offerings are more equitable.

Quality vs. Quantity ... the cow represents "more" not so much as "DIY"

Anyway, I see what you're trying to say @ what I wrote. Thanks.

Again thanks to everyone for their input, you've had excellent points. This particular company didn't seem to know what their budget was, how they wanted to use the images, and seemed like they were playing dumb up until the point where they wanted to use the images. I would say flying by the seat of their pants, is a good way to phrase it. I'm glad I received my compensation for the shoot and it's time to move on, although I can't wait to see the images on their new site. I agree that quality is always better than quantity and you get what you pay for.

RustyBug wrote:
Just because you were given a cow (which contains the potential to create good milk) doesn't mean that it produces good milk. It isn't until people realize that the reason the cow was "given" in the package was because it just isn't that good of a milk producer does the value of milk vs. cow begin to reveal itself.

Sadly, until the time passes when they realize that it doesn't produce the same as the better milk that was offered, the bargain of the free cow suddenly isn't the bargain it was first thought to be.

Not much different from planting cheap seed, and expecting a great crop. The images here are being used to assist with growth. Using bad seed, sour milk or lesser compelling imagery can be rather folly. Convincing someone that they are better off paying for the better product ... in the face of someone offering them more products is tougher than when the quantity of offerings are more equitable.

Quality vs. Quantity ... the cow represents "more" not so much as "DIY"

Anyway, I see what you're trying to say @ what I wrote. Thanks.

pacman642 wrote:
I was hired to see if I could achieve a certain look, and I did. I gave them a price on shooting the images up front they were uncertain on how they were going to use the images, or presented themselves that way. At the end I told them to refer to the contract and that ownership and copyrights were the property of the photographer, me, until they can negotiate based on usage. I was very clear on both fronts, at which time they indicated they wanted all the images to use as they see fit at any time. I priced them accordingly and they said "no thanks"

IF you registered your photos and they are noticeably creative images (meaning not just simple shots that most photographers would have taken anyways) and they hire someone to "recreate" your work you can sue them for damages and win.

RustyBug would better explain this than I.

Jimsokay wrote:
pacman642 wrote:
I was hired to see if I could achieve a certain look, and I did. I gave them a price on shooting the images up front they were uncertain on how they were going to use the images, or presented themselves that way. At the end I told them to refer to the contract and that ownership and copyrights were the property of the photographer, me, until they can negotiate based on usage. I was very clear on both fronts, at which time they indicated they wanted all the images to use as they see fit at any time. I priced them accordingly and they said "no thanks"

IF you registered your photos and they are noticeably creative images (meaning not just simple shots that most photographers would have taken anyways) and they hire someone to "recreate" your work you can sue them for damages and win.

RustyBug would better explain this than I.



Sorry, it makes no difference. The client decided to use the previous shots, once the client got the T&C from the OP, the lousy shots from the other photographer seemed a lot better!

+1 @ the work used preceded the OP's work ... i.e. "recreate" is NA.