Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Do you still accept 20%?  (Read 4363 times)
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« on: March 20, 2009, 12:20:35 PM »
ReplyReply

I was wondering who is still signing those "standard" contracts that the Fashion (and non) magazines still hand you when you begin a collaboration.
It is the usual contract that allow them to resell your photos to third parties and they propose you only 20% of the amount they make on every picture they sell.
A couple of days ago I was sent one of those contract to sign, but I asked them to change from 20% to 50%, which seems more reasonable and what normally my stock agency pays me for my photos. I do not know yet if they accept my condition, but it will not be negotiable.

I'm curious to see how many accept these kind of conditions.

cheers.



Logged
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2009, 12:37:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John Schweikert
Seems like a bad deal regardless the percentage unless 100% goes to you. They're not a stock agency, nor your rep, so why should they get to resell your work at all. I have never seen that before.
well, let's not kidd each other.
100% is out of question. they still make the work of pursuing sales on images that normally slip very deeply in our hard drives, basement of our homes or are lost on oblivion.

I think 50% is fair,it is still some kind of work I do not have the time and connections to do it. It takes quite a few people to direct all that traffic.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2009, 12:38:50 PM by ziocan » Logged
dustblue
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2009, 12:42:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been through this too, but the number was 40%, and devided by me and the model, so I got 20%. Be it some stilllife photos, I should have got all the 40%. I am based in Beijing, so the situation maybe different.

The fact is, if I refuse to resell my photo when I don't get 50%, then I get 0%--they just wont be sold.

But if we all insist on the 50%, then it would be different.

Dustblue

Quote from: ziocan
I was wondering who is still signing those "standard" contracts that the Fashion (and non) magazines still hand you when you begin a collaboration.
It is the usual contract that allow them to resell your photos to third parties and they propose you only 20% of the amount they make on every picture they sell.
A couple of days ago I was sent one of those contract to sign, but I asked them to change from 20% to 50%, which seems more reasonable and what normally my stock agency pays me for my photos. I do not know yet if they accept my condition, but it will not be negotiable.

I'm curious to see how many accept these kind of conditions.

cheers.
Logged

dustblue
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2009, 12:54:09 PM »
ReplyReply

In fashion magazines there is a kind of editorial photos, those are just for a specific brand, for example Estee Lauder, but those are not advertisements. When the magazines resell photos, they usually just resell this kind of photos to that specific brand.
And when the magazines do that, they think they contribute to these photos too(the editor's idea, the production fee etc.). So I really don't think the magazine would accept a ratio higher than 50%...

Quote from: John Schweikert
I still don't understand how a contract like that at 50% would be desirable. Don't get Leslie Burns, Debra Weiss, A Photo Editor or others on this, they will tear it apart.

You should be licensing the image at a huge premium at the start if they want to have the opportunity to sell third party use. I mean that is standard or should be standard on every photographer's paperwork, no third party use without express permission or compensation (100% is usually best there).
Logged

mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2009, 01:03:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Personally I think it is a bad idea for the magazine to control your images after the first rights publication. You are much better off sending that image to your stock agent & letting them sell your image. That is what we do.
Denis
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
marcwilson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2009, 01:04:16 PM »
ReplyReply

But surely unless you have licensed these images exclsuively to the magazine for all time, once the license is up, say after 2 years, then if the company such as estee lauder wants to use the image, they should be coming to you to buy a license to use those images.

If you are shooting for a client who then wants to basically sell on those images, making money for doing nothing off your hard work, the initial license fee they pay should reflect that.

Marc
Logged

ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2009, 03:57:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you for the replays so far.
I see that some of you guys are even tougher than me with money.
I normally do not sign those contracts. the last time I did it, I was much younger and inexperienced, it was still in the early nineties. since then I always worked with my agents.
I normally work with my stock agent at 50% and i do not give any right of reusing the photos to magazines.
Since my agent did not want to use these photos i did for this magazine, i thought it was OK to let the magazine resell them, if that ever happens.
Normally I do not have time to take care of my picture re sales, that is why i think that even if the magazine take 50% on the sale for the work they do, it will always be money that I would never get otherwise.
They are only 6 images and it is not likely I will work for this publication again, since i do not like it and the potential of the images in question is not on the "estee lauder, here you get 50 grands" league.

anyway asking for 100% for the usage of my image, when someone else made the sale in my behave is a bit too much I think. As i said those images would be sitting in my hard drive, since I do not have time and will to promote them.

Logged
framah
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1204



« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2009, 04:16:45 PM »
ReplyReply

You can look at it this way...
If  your images were in a gallery, the gallery typically gets 50% of the sale price.  It used to be 40% not too long ago. So 50% is in the ballpark for sales commissions.

Of course, here is my gripe about galleries commissions...

If the artist spends $400 to have the piece framed and sells it in a gallery for $1500, the gallery gets $750 and the artists gets $750...EXCEPT that he still has to recoup the cost of the framing which now means that the gallery makes $750 while he only makes $350!! Not very fair in my mind.

I feel the split should be on the amount left over after deducting the framing cost.
I'm sure the galleries won't agree with me, tho.

Just my thoughts.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2009, 04:17:30 PM by framah » Logged

"It took a  lifetime of suffering and personal sacrifice to develop my keen aesthetic sense."
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2372


« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2009, 02:13:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: framah
You can look at it this way...
If  your images were in a gallery, the gallery typically gets 50% of the sale price.  It used to be 40% not too long ago. So 50% is in the ballpark for sales commissions.

Of course, here is my gripe about galleries commissions...

If the artist spends $400 to have the piece framed and sells it in a gallery for $1500, the gallery gets $750 and the artists gets $750...EXCEPT that he still has to recoup the cost of the framing which now means that the gallery makes $750 while he only makes $350!! Not very fair in my mind.

I feel the split should be on the amount left over after deducting the framing cost.
I'm sure the galleries won't agree with me, tho.

Just my thoughts.


Hmmmm.... you analogy is somewhat crippled IMO. The gallery has its own costs trying to sell your work at their risk. They pay for the rent, salaries and handle all extra costs like dealing with clients and aftercare. Don't be surprised if that adds up to at least the same costs.

Another thought. When the photograph cannot be sold the artist can always recoup the frame and use it for another piece. Do you think the gallery can recoup the majority of its costs?
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 02:13:33 AM by Dustbak » Logged
Easton
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 61



WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2009, 02:32:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I was forced to sign one of these, I think it's the same thing? I beleived they called it an Exclusive Agent Agreement, meaning that despite I retain copyright, I cannot resell the images anywhere without them taking a 50% cut. And they can sell the images at their discretion and give me 50%.

We were forced to sign, because if we didn't it meant we couldn't shoot for any ACP title anymore (meaning no more work!) Their editors were given a policy to only use photographers who have signed that agreement.

The deal in NZ was worse apparently - they had to give them outright copyright.

Talk about taking advantage of poor freelancers!
Logged

marcwilson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 411


WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2009, 04:15:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: framah
You can look at it this way...
If  your images were in a gallery, the gallery typically gets 50% of the sale price.  It used to be 40% not too long ago. So 50% is in the ballpark for sales commissions.

Of course, here is my gripe about galleries commissions...

If the artist spends $400 to have the piece framed and sells it in a gallery for $1500, the gallery gets $750 and the artists gets $750...EXCEPT that he still has to recoup the cost of the framing which now means that the gallery makes $750 while he only makes $350!! Not very fair in my mind.

I feel the split should be on the amount left over after deducting the framing cost.
I'm sure the galleries won't agree with me, tho.

Just my thoughts.


sorry but don't get it.
it's up to you of course but normally a gallery would ask you to give them your studio price which you would have factored into your printing and framing cost (wether just print or framed print) and they then multiply it by 2 (in the case of a 50/50 split) to get their selling price.

if you give them your studio price on just the print, and they then want you to frame a print for them..and it costs you $200 to frame, you should expect them to sell framed print for extra $400.

Why would a gallery think otherwise?
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 04:16:05 AM by marcwilson » Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3542



WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2009, 03:16:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Easton
I was forced to sign one of these, I think it's the same thing? I beleived they called it an Exclusive Agent Agreement, meaning that despite I retain copyright, I cannot resell the images anywhere without them taking a 50% cut. And they can sell the images at their discretion and give me 50%.

We were forced to sign, because if we didn't it meant we couldn't shoot for any ACP title anymore (meaning no more work!) Their editors were given a policy to only use photographers who have signed that agreement.
EMAP tried something like that in the UK. They were told to get stuffed by photographers. They were apparently using 5 types of contract, the more punitive ones were aimed at newbies, with the aim of replacing established photographers. Not sure if they are still trying it on.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2009, 05:16:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
EMAP tried something like that in the UK. They were told to get stuffed by photographers. They were apparently using 5 types of contract, the more punitive ones were aimed at newbies, with the aim of replacing established photographers. Not sure if they are still trying it on.

Hi
Here in Sydney Australia ACP which is a very large publishing house has put these contracts forward & from my understanding a lot of photographers have signed them. We don't work for ACP & have not signed the contract & we won't. I was keen to work with one of there magazines & the picture editor asked if we had signed the contract & I said no. Her last comment was we can't do business then. They have a term for this contract "Preferred Photographers". We do editorial work in Australia & we give them first rights which is for 30-60 days. Then the image goes to our stock agent who manages the syndication.
Denis
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
DesW
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2009, 07:33:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mcfoto
Hi
Here in Sydney Australia ACP which is a very large publishing house has put these contracts forward & from my understanding a lot of photographers have signed them. We don't work for ACP & have not signed the contract & we won't. I was keen to work with one of there magazines & the picture editor asked if we had signed the contract & I said no. Her last comment was we can't do business then. They have a term for this contract "Preferred Photographers". We do editorial work in Australia & we give them first rights which is for 30-60 days. Then the image goes to our stock agent who manages the syndication.
Denis

Morning All,
Hmmm--while I have been aware of this ACP "puton" both here and in NZ I am on the list of the so called "Preferred Photographers" with them--have NEVER signed Jacksquat, -- but I still get assignments from Sydney HQ--just been paid in full for one this month-no mention of any "contracts".

DesW
http://www.deswilliams.com/
Logged
dustblue
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 22, 2009, 01:41:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Des:
I've just looked through your website, you have really great works!
Dustblue


Quote from: DesW
Morning All,
Hmmm--while I have been aware of this ACP "puton" both here and in NZ I am on the list of the so called "Preferred Photographers" with them--have NEVER signed Jacksquat, -- but I still get assignments from Sydney HQ--just been paid in full for one this month-no mention of any "contracts".

DesW
http://www.deswilliams.com/
Logged

nicholask
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2009, 01:49:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I left NZ 10 years ago, largely to get away from the hopeless laws pertaining to copyright ownership on images for photographers - in short, having commissioned a shoot, the commissioning agent (read client) automatically owned copyright on the images.  This was unacceptable to me, and I thought I would pursue my career in Australia, where I continue to work.

I believe ACP largely used its Auckland office as a testing ground for its exploitative practices, which it then extended into the Sydney market.  I last worked for them in 1997, and had no desire to continue the association beyond then - I simply did not want to dish up my work to them on a platter to own ad infinitum.

I am not surprised that Des W has not been asked to sign a contract by ACP, as I suspected that this was the case with the publisher - get who you can to sign, but if you really  want them to shoot irregardless....well...just let the contract slide.

I advised a fellow photographer who works out of Byron Bay not to sign the ACP contract, though he went ahead and did so in any case.  The funny thing is that he is probably one the few photographers working in his style and at his level in the Byron area.  He could have simply said 'no', and let the picture editors scratch around trying to find someone else up there to work for their meager day rates.  Easton who writes from Newcastle could have done the same.  I mean, really, if nobody signs, no dice, right?
Logged

nicholask
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2009, 01:56:53 AM »
ReplyReply

PS..
for a textbook lesson in what NOT to do with your copyright, look at the front page of NZ photographer Simon Harper's website:

"Our aim is for 100% client satisfaction with no unwanted surprises. That's why Harper Photographics does not retain ownership/copyright or charge usage fees on any of our images."
from www.harperphoto.com
Logged

ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2009, 12:12:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: nicholask
PS..
for a textbook lesson in what NOT to do with your copyright, look at the front page of NZ photographer Simon Harper's website:

"Our aim is for 100% client satisfaction with no unwanted surprises. That's why Harper Photographics does not retain ownership/copyright or charge usage fees on any of our images."
from www.harperphoto.com
It is suckers like that who ruins our profession.
the problem is that since the 80ies a lot of folks decided to take photography as a profession, when they should have better be working at the car repair shop or drugstore. now we have plenty of those around and clients think they are photographers...

Architects and lawyers got a minimum tariff and certain "etiquette" on pricing and conditions. I do not get why in the creative industry we never got something like that. I can see the difference on the fact that architect and lawyers need to have a degree to be called such and we do not, but there must be a way to separate the real from the wannabe.

"Clients do not want surprises". That is recurrent line I read and ear from AD agencies with small budgets or from certain countries. The problem is that there are a large amount of phot... err.. suckers who lower their pants and accept that.
we all got our mortgages, leasing, college bills or other next BMW we would like to buy, therefore we need to do compromises to do some work. All life is a compromise, no doubt, but there should be a limit in foolishness with pricing and condition. I also wonder if photographers that lower their pants all the times accepting conditions like the above, will ever be able to afford all of that and be financially efficient anyway.
I know a few of guys that work like that and accept those condition and they live in bad neiughbourgs and need to take a lease for buying a 2000 euro camera, which is almost pocket money for the others who charge that kind of money for usage of a small photo.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2009, 12:13:24 PM by ziocan » Logged
dandeliondigital
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 224



WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2009, 02:26:17 PM »
ReplyReply


I have a few comments:

"There ought to be a law!" And there is for "architects and lawyers," and also many, many other regulated professions.

Be careful what you wish for. You might get it, because at that point I think you can kiss your creativity good-bye. Regulations and creativity do not mix. If you aren't creative, and lack negotiation skills, you should probably work at that drugstore.

Creatitvity and negotiation skills are all you ever have in this ( and really most non-regulated) business(es).

One of my earliest employers used to say: "you're only as good as your last job."  This applies to "reals or wanabees." People learn fast. Creatives probably learn even faster.

What others do can make problems for you in some instances, but you really didn't want to be doing what they are doing did you? If so then welcome to our "field."

Risk and rewards are what being accomplished and remunerated is all about.

So long for now, TOM


Quote from: ziocan
Architects and lawyers got a minimum tariff and certain "etiquette" on pricing and conditions. I do not get why in the creative industry we never got something like that. I can see the difference on the fact that architect and lawyers need to have a degree to be called such and we do not, but there must be a way to separate the real from the wannabe.
Logged

www.dandeliondigital.com posters and prints
DesW
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #19 on: March 22, 2009, 08:04:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dustblue
Des:
I've just looked through your website, you have really great works!
Dustblue

Aw Gee Dusty-- thanks for that-- Luv ya work too!--not much action snapper wise up in the the of the pointy bit of Aust-- just Crocs on one side and Sharks on the other-Ha!

But I enjoy my playtime with my mates on the GBR--like Charlie the Cuttlefish.

DesW


[attachment=12391:Cuttle1.jpg]
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad