I like the link – great explanation (and illustration).

Maybe they need to institue a company newsletter or something.

Whenever I’ve done work like this, they generally want a lot of PR usage b/c they don’t yet know where they will be using it. So where is the line between their companies right to use the image as PR and my right to use it as stock.

After doing press photos for a band for expenses only I recently had one show up as a magazine cover. A magazine cover is beyond “press” usage for the band as it is also selling the magazine making it commercial use, not just band promotion. In the magazines defense they were very understanding and apologetic and did end up compensating me for that use. Of course this is not always the case and the more I work in photography the more I learn (always the hard way) about the need for clear and extensive usage/rights contracts.

contract contract contract.

Have you seen most publications these days (esp. ones that run celebrity images regularly)?

You can hardly tell them apart. There is little, if any, “editorial input” – it is a glorified headshot ‘story’ crafted mainly by pr people…

Its not really a surprise that many sectors of the publishing industry are cratering when you consider how devoid of compelling content they are.

The media is part of the problem as they pay less and less to create original, quality content and rely more and more on hand-outs. The photographer can easily get caught in the middle, creating work on spec and hoping to earn income on licensing. But once the image is made and the concern shifts to getting the story out, paying the photographer becomes an afterthought (unless he/she strictly regulates the distribution and use).

As Elizabeth pointed out, this is very true in the music business. I try to advocate that bands (and labels, publicity people, etc. ) invest in creative, fairly licensed promotional photography. It’s astounding how much more media coverage you can get with a good live photo and a good portrait. The key is to fairly compensate the photographer.

I wrote about the relationship between music photographers, bands and media here if anyone is interested (with stick figure illustrations!): http://is.gd/sC7D

You could always pursue something with the magazine since they are publishing your work (did you register your copyright?). However, this might strain your relations with this publicist, since it would likely get back to them and strain their relationship with the magazine.

Also, there are some celebrities,publicists and licensing agencies that will partner up to commission a shoot like in the Art & Commerce example above. In fact, that is the business model of a couple licensing agencies out there. They may pay the photographer a decent day rate but retain ALL rights to the images. Or they may cover the expenses and split the profits on the images (after the expenses are recouped). Something like 40% for the agency, 30% for the celebrity and 30% for the photographer. Of course there are all sorts of permutations on this model as well.

Sometimes it can even be a disadvantage to have a shoot commissioned by a publication. The magazine may have strict embargoes on the images so we can’t resell them for a period of time or to certain types of other publications. And to top it off, the magazines usually have very limited budgets anyway. So we don’t really make much money on those kinds of shoots AND it can be harder to resell the images. One magazine will barely cover my expenses, but then will not let me resell the images for 18 months! Depending on the subject I will still do it….. especially if I think they will still be “hot” in 18 months, so I just look at it as an investment for the future.

In my experience, the publicists I have worked with all understand and respect the photographer’s position in helping their client gain exposure. And if the publicist gets a call by a publication looking for images of their client, they will almost always just refer them to our licensing agent anyway to purchase the images. So from the perspective of an advertising photographer, perhaps the questionable payment and contract arrangements may sound terrible. But in practicality it is a symbiotic relationship. There is no reason to feel sorry for a photographer who specializes in celebrity shooting…. once they have a decent stock of celebrity images, it can generate $20,000 to $30,000 a month, or even a lot more, whether or not the photographer is shooting new work.

People are always seeking to get something free from whoever they can.

Apparently, there is an endless supply of photographers willing to give work away without a contract, without money and without a clue.

Exactly…..with this kinda business model, the jobs will either go to young kids who will work for free in order to get noticed, or the Peter Linbergh’s, Mark Seliger’s and Annie Leibovitz’s of the World will be requested even more than they are now! Hey, I’m no Pollyanna…I know that 98% of all celebrity portraiture is about sellin’ soap…but don’t even bother calling it ‘Editorial’ photography if the magazines publishing the shots are taken outta the creative mix.

BT

I’d like to think that I have had a small part in helping the careers of the artists I believe in.

In contrast shooting for a publicist – - removes the “talent scout” aspect for the most part.

~ H

I may be wrong, but without any editorial input aren’t we talking about glorified headshots?

Too utopian for photographers? Does this already happen more than I realize?

After reading your article my suspicion is that there is no more relationship there with that agency and my hope is that this was not used against me with industry professionals. Is it customary for publicists to get free work without any compensation to the photographer? Also, are the publicists making money off of the images getting into magazines?