I have a video-production company in Holland, and it is always nice to have information about making an estimate.

thanks,
Pepijn

I always encourage photographers to shoot more than is asked of them given the opportunity. Producing more images to choose from is a great way to impress the client. And, of course, it creates the opportunity to license additional variations down the road.

I wouldn’t say this eliminates the need for a digital tech, though. Often the client has a specific shot list you need to hit. Whether you are shooting extra or not, they’ll want to make sure they’re getting what they need the day of the shoot.

The photographer gets the file prep fee. Basic file preps are generally straightforward enough for the photographer to handle without the assistance of a retoucher.

Retouching is typically a separate line item and may or may not be marked up depending on the photographers preference.

I agree with Craig. You have to pick your battles. Whenever use in perpetuity is requested, I push pretty hard to limit it to 5 years. Sometimes, the client is unwilling to budge, even knowing that the alternative sufficiently covers their needs and is much less expensive.

In cases like this you have to consider that, even though they are asking for use in perpetuity, they will not be able to use the images after 3-5 years because of changes in branding, staff and fashion. The images have a shelf life and will probably expire within 5 years.

For this project, we decided to be a little flexible and work with the client’s request.

It’s also worth noting that at the very top levels of jobs, your multi-6 figures for consumer products and such, the ‘buyout’ is pretty common. But you’re making a year’s worth of income in a month – and those materials will need to replaced in 2 years time. It’s not a bad deal.

I can think of one case where I bid on the same (relatively small) job as another, the prices were similar, difference was I listened to the client, what they needed and presented them with options and it was very clear what the cost would be if the shoot grew (or shrank). Stubborn guy threw in a 2 page terms of license and day rates with no guarantee of how much could be done in a day. Client simply wasn’t sure what they were getting. This client ended up adding on to the shoot and I made another 50% over the initial estimate. And they were happy to pay it.

The important thing is to service your client. There’s no need to screw yourself – if its a bad deal, just refuse it. But before you throw the baby out the window because someone says they want ‘all rights’ or ‘buyout’ or whatever, actually think about it for a moment. There’s likely a practical solution where everyone’s satisfied. And if they’re a company with capital – bill ‘em.

With some clients sometimes the ‘perpetuity’ line is the difference between making the sale and not making it. There’s a time and a place to fight that battle (celebrity spec shoots come to mind), but often its not really worth it.

But yes as a matter of practicality, many images have a lifespan of 2-3 years before they are simply out of date and have no further value.

I know some photographers who fight that fight every single time… they never seem to be working very much. I think its because they come across as inflexible and difficult.

That also seems a clever way to eliminate the digital tech and tethered shooting by explaining to get that many choices we have to skip the deluxe preview and go with a loupe on the back of a camera.

So who gets the post file management fee?

If it’s the photographer do they pay a commission on that fee?

I do think for the same amount you quoted that you could have eliminated the “in perpetuity” clause in the contract using the very same argument with your client that you clearly and concisely state here–the images will steadily decrease in value to them over the years due to changes in hair styles and fashion. Keep in mind, most publicity photos are created to accompany an announcement the client feels has news value. Realistically, that “news” is old and crusty six months down the road. They don’t need rights in perpetuity–rather, a year or two maximum. When the license period expires, if the client continues to see value in those images, they have the option to re-license for additional years. If they don’t see continued value in that work, it’s time for them to commission new work.

One other thing worth mentioning. It is absolutely critical with PR folks that “Publicity” usage be very clearly defined. Because PR agencies don’t have art buyers on staff–people who regularly commission work–their understanding of rights is not as sophisticated. It’s been my experience they feel that annual reports, corporate capabilities brochures, and advertorials fall under “publicity” usage. It should be made clear to them that if they pay to place the image, it is NOT publicity.

But how much did the photographer make? and the producer?

Kingsley