Another red flag is he wants to photoshop YOUR images after you give them to him, you have no idea what he plans to do to them. It really doesn't sound very good at this point to pursue this project with him.

In 2006 I did over twenty golf courses in our province for the government tourist golf publication, and I knew that usage would be a problem .. very difficult to police when you have so many sub-clients.

So I submitted a bid based on what I figured would be maximum usage. I was not the lowest bid, but I am a stellar golf course photographer I got the business, and it was a nice mid five figure contract.

Stop wasting time on this guy, you probably won't get the business .. the very second you start "educating" a client is usually the very second they decide that they are not going to hire you.

I love golf courses and golf course photography, and have had a lot of international publication. I'd like to see some of your work, not often I see a wedding photographer who also shoots golf courses (like myself)

Most clients don't care how you got to the final cost, they just want to know if they can afford it. The more line items on an estimate the more questions a picky client will have, and then you get into explaining usage to someone who doesn;t care about it. And most photographers have a difficult time explaining usage and licensing to without coming off as self serving.
Funny, I did a job once for a snack food company and they did actually pay partly in peanuts! (not just peanuts, cashews and almonds, pistachios too) And when bidding a job I am always looking for ways to get more than I deserve

Mike: I have a lot of variety in what I shoot. While the Wedding Photography board is my favorite on FM, wedding photography is not the majority of my business.

There are 18 holes in a standard golf course. To strategize/scope/assess each hole, position to the sun/trees/obstacles, best time of day, set up lighting where necessary, shoot, reframe, shoot. Even if this only takes 30m per hole it will take you at least 10 hours to do per course. Unless I'm way out of line here and they only want 1 or 2 holes, $1000 shouldn't even touch this.

Yeah Phyl, you're right-on. At first he said he thought it should take an hour per course. I told him there's no way that's possible. In a helicopter, sure, but not on the ground. Unless I spent several days per course, there's no way I could wait for the perfect light/weather on a budget, but yes I think it would take a full day per course. He asked if it could be done in a half-day and I said maybe, but most definitely not less than that.

I'd say 30 minutes per hole is a pretty conservative estimate, since I'd probably get multiple angles per hole as well. And likely I'd have to spend some time waiting for there not to be people right next to me trying to drive a ball into my face.

I'll be requoting his line "doesn't live the lifestyle" ... nearly brought me to tears. I'd say educate him if you want to but I doubt it will do much good. However, you will have the necessary materials to 'educate' other potential clients in the future, plus there is always the chance that you will get the job. It just looks like he wants a 'work-for-hire' situation and is badly confused about anything other than that.
Best,
Andy

P.S. Please let us know how this turns out: it could be educational or entertaining for us.

i replied to him earlier with basically the email i said i would send him. this was the final version:


Hi XXXXXXX,

I understand your concerns - I've found that the majority of new clients are confused about how licensing work when they first contact me. Rest assured that I'm not asking for anything that isn't standard in the industry. That being said, I know you're worried about the final price (though we haven't discussed usage rates yet), but I suspect that I will be similar in price to your aerial assignments when you take into consideration the cost of using a helicopter etc...

Out of curiosity, are all the other photographers you work with actual employees? That makes a big difference if they're on-staff versus contracted externally.

Licensing and usage fees can get complicated, so to help illustrate, here's a quick excerpt from a book entitled "Pricing Photography: The Complete Guide to Assignment and Stock Prices"

WORK-FOR-HIRE
An issue that many clients continue to force is that of work-for-hire. Very simply, the Copyright Act of 1976 gives authors limited monopoly power over the work they produce. This means that authors can decide who can use their work, what it will cost to use it, and that no one can reproduce it without the author's permission. If copyright protection weren't extended to authors, as soon as their work as made public, some unscrupulous operator could freely reproduce the work and make money from the author's efforts. The exception to author's copyright protection are those cases where work is created by employees. The employer owners the copyright under a principle known as made for hire. The work-for-hire provision was added to the Copyright Act to satisfy publishers who claimed that, because they paid salaries and benefits, they should own the copyright to works created by employees.


Let me know if you would like me to continue working on your estimate (I got the impression that you have decided to look elsewhere). Please don't hesitate to call or email me with any questions or to discuss this further.

Kurtis, if I were you I'd walk away from this guy and not waste another moment of time thinking about it or posting here about it. He will not want to be educated about photographers rights. He couldn't care less about rights or you. If you want this work, do yourself a favor and go for it yourself.

Peter

Architectural Photography by Peter Montanti, www.mountainphotographics.com

Quoting from books about licensing photography is fine but if he wants to pay a photographer whatever amount and the photographer is willing give up all rights there isn't anything to be done about it, there ain't no photographers union. Maybe the place to start "educating" is with other photographers, he's just after a good deal any way he can do it and if photographers are willing to take lousy deals so be it. Now you are probably photographer #31in his list.

Just for laughs send him an estimate for spending 10 hours at each course, tech scouting and all the other stuff, he'll get a kick out if it being 10x what he thinks the job is worth.

Haha... He'd be like what the hell is tech scouting!?

$1000 for the day including the rights doesn't seem at all high to me. But might be different in your market. I did a shoot for a local symphony with agreement to have shot by... on all forms of reproduction for $1080 +tx for the day.


TTLKurtis wrote:
I was thinking about that, but then it also makes the client wonder why your rate is so high. It does often help to break it into chunks so they understand -why- it's X amount.

The problem is, they DO want to sell/transfer the images. That's basically the -only- thing they want the images for, is to transfer them to the golf course(s).

Including this sort of usage, $1,000 for the day would be too low not too high.

I got thru the first page.. I stop there.

$250 for a golf course on foot isn't worth it.

Charge an hourly rate plus travel at the MINIMUM.

After doing a couple of residential (real estate, and advertisment for a siding company job) I have to say from my experience that it isn't fun. Weddings are fun. Buildings for $$$ are just stressful. Make it more than worth your time if you have to get your feet dirty.