So my dear neighbors up in the north I truly won´t recommend you having this kind of business of covering a photoshoot and waiting for payment because as the market is today you don´t know when the F you are going to get your money back and anyone knows that a long delay in payments is a PITA because you end up digging money from other gigs to cover the usual expenses from your photo business because you didn´t received the other payment on time.

That said, the contracts are clearly drawn up by Agency legal and negotiated by the Agency. It might indeed be interesting to negotiate directly with the Client. But legally, the contracts are already with them.

And finally, under the Copyright Act, you can’t lose your copyright if you don’t sign. Also, under basic contract law, if the terms of the contract are clearly written on the document, and that’s the part you sign, the fine print doesn’t change them. Not that I would recommend signing something that says total buy-out though. Cross it out.

http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/1179.html

This “twenty question” form has always been the thing that’s scared me. According to this, if you answer “yes” to even one of the questions, the person can be considered a part-time employee. But the whole issue seems very vague, honestly. Amazing to me that it’s not more clear cut.

Do you pay your assistants as Independent Contractors, or as Part Time Employees? Do you take out taxes on them? If so, how could you pay them the day of?

“Campbell-Ewald Art Buyers are asking agents and photographers to cover all the expenses on car shoots”

What expenses, as an assistant, are you asked to cover? Assistant sequential liability and the photographer sequential liability–the focus of this blog post–are not the same.

Still, apples to oranges. One requires large amounts of cash (or interest accruing credit) and time, the other only requires time.

It’s a free market. Negotiate a favorable payment time-frame with a photographer or pass on the job.

David Dunbar Buick had the engine, Billy Durant was the great promoter. The rest is American car history. GM is based on Buick.

On the design side there was the Y-Job concept car (Harley Earl) in 1938 – more ‘Art Deco’ than a Cord 810.

The Buick Roadmasters of the 50′s area.(I personally prefer the 8-in-line over the V8)

The 1963 Riviera by Bill Mitchell – a milestone in design, still an icon.

Last, but not least, the 71-73 Riviera ‘Boattails’ (especially the ones with Stage option package *smile). Also designed by Bill Mitchell (who did the Stingray Vette too – so you know where the boattail Buick has it’s origin)

Just to name a few (and to keep it short and sweet) :-)

Cheers, Reini

Understand. I think there are several options for funding this sort of offering. Commercial paper would be one option.

I’m just saying instead of discussing this topic as pox on photographers, let’s discuss it as a type of business service which may, or may not, be appropriate for individual photographers.

There is obviously a market for sequential liability business transactions. The question is how can you offer such a transaction with maximum profitability and minimal financial risk? And how do you assess whether your business really justifies offering this sort of service?

Rob has done an excellent job of providing overviews of other business issues facing photographers (hiring an agent, proposals, etc.). This topic probably deserves the same treatment.

First Line:
“Photographers will move into CGI, they’ll have no choice,” says leading car photographer Carl Lyttle.

The article also goes on to describe how Art Buyers are hiring their own retouchers, cutting photographers out of the process altogether.

Seems photography is fast becoming just another tool for illustrators. (Albeit digital illustrators.) Ironic considering the camera killed the paint brush over a hundred years ago.

You see, I have to believe in what I shoot in order to take on a project. It’s more than the money for me. As Dan Wieden (http://www.wk.com) once said, each individual on a campaign should make a connection to that campaign, much like being in a relationship. I could be passionate about a Corvette or a Camaro, and that would come across in the way I approach photographing one, almost like entering a new relationship.

CGI rarely works out to be a cost savings at the standard of quality that is car ads.

There’s a lot of time and talent involved in putting together a good CGI ad.

I don’t think GM could write terms that are more arbitrary, abusive and exploitative if they tried. GM’s arrogance and sense of entitlement is truly mindboggling.

Hopefully no one will agree to be used by GM in this manner – not even a trust fund baby with his/her own bottomless gold mine who really, really wants to be a photographer (as soneone else so insightfully observed).

Thanks for your (very) informed response and I apologize if I insulted your manhood.

So, the Omnicom thing didn’t stick, and even when they say ‘no advance’ you can get an advance. Sounds like there’s nothing to worry about as long as agents have good relationships with reasonable art buyers…

$645,768 – would love to see that estimate on aPE.

This sounds crazy, but the contract states that there will be no advance from the agency, but has anyone bothered to ask whether or not the client could advance expenses?

There has been a lot of discussion here about the potential negative impact of sequential liability, but why not look at it as a new type of service offering?

Clearly there are consumers of photographic services who would prefer to do business using a sequential liability payment model. The question is how can professional photographers accommodate this preference without undermining profitability and taking on huge financial risk?

The fundamental issue here is under a sequential liability payment system photographers are essentially extending a line of credit to organizations purchasing photographic services. Credit is the backbone of business. However, in virtually every case where credit is offered, the provider of credit charges extra fees to make the offering profitable. Moreover, the contract used is structured to protect the credit provider from risk. I don’t see why the same concepts wouldn’t work here.

So here is my thought. You (Rob) have done a great job of providing informative interviews with knowledgeable people on various aspects of photography. Why not do the same thing with sequential liability?

A couple thoughts:

1. Talk with an attorney about the best way to structure a contract for a sequential liability agreement. If there is someone willing to offer a boilerplate template of a sample contract, that would be fantastic.

2. Find someone who can discuss capitalization of this sort of service offering. I realize fronting a shoot involves a lot of money. But lots of businesses require working capital to buy goods/services for resale. This sort of offering won’t be for everyone. How do you assess your business to determine whether it makes sense?

3. Talk to an accountant on how to manage this type of offering. What are the tax implications? How do you manage the books? etc.
Clearly there is added complexity here, how do you get your head around it and make sure you pass the added cost of complexity on to the consumer?

4. How to price the offering? Maybe interview someone from the banking sector? Clearly this type of contract should be priced above situations where the agency pays the photographer for expenses up front. But how much more would be fair, reasonable and still profitable?

My bottom line thesis here is this whole concept isn’t that scary if you look at it from a business perspective. You just have to figure out whether it’s a type of service worth offering and whether there is enough profit to offset the extra time/financial commitment necessary to offer it.