| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: Working with photographers |
Topic: Working with photographers
| Author | Message |
| spacedesign | Posted – 7/1/2008 5:44:37 PM | show profile | email poster A photographer cost me an article assignment that I worked on for almost a year. I visited a house in Costa Rica last summer and pitched an article about its architecture/interior design to Florida Design. They accepted (especially since I've written for them for more than 15 years). However the acceptance was rescinded because they photographer wouldn't sell his shots of the house for less than $150/photo. I was planning to work with this photographer as a sort of partner. He and I both share homes to write about. He gets hired by people to shoot a house and then tells me about the house. I interview the people involved, pitch the story to a publication, and write it. All the photographer has to do is negotiate with the publication for a selling price for his shots. Now mind you he's already been paid handsomely by the homeowners or other people involved with the house. I on the other hand cannot do so because it would be a conflict of interest. However I will usually be paid more for writing the story than he will be paid for selling his photos to the publication. This is just easy cash for the photographer. In the end he cost me a project I had worked on for almost a year. I'm not sure if I should pitch the story to another publication and risk the fact that they won't offer him more money, therefore possibly make myself look bad. I'm also not sure if I should work with him again. Is he greedy or am I not seeing something? I don't feel it's in my best interest to pitch magazines I've never worked with (or even those I have) stories where the photographer will pose a problem. Help? ------ http://senseofplacewriter.blogspot.com/ |
| JeanMarie | Posted – 7/1/2008 6:41:36 PM | show profile | email poster I think this situation is unfortunate, but I think you're missing a few things. A professional photographer has overhead, expenses & standards that he's responsible for. To say that any professional's work is "easy cash" is honestly a little ... well... unprofessional. If you want to establish a partnership with this photog, ask to sit down and get a better understanding of his pricing strategy. Get a better understanding of photo licensing strategies and standards. Then decide if you want to partner or not. It's worth at least talking about. |
| Village Gal | Posted – 7/1/2008 9:23:46 PM | show profile wait a minute. the photographer is running a business too and that is a very low rate to ask from a magazine, makes no difference how he acquired the original shot. The magazine is tyring to lowball the photog. I'm sorry this messed up your story but I can't see why you think he's greedy. One way to avoid this in the future is for someone to ascertain the mag's rate for photography before you proceed to write the piece. |
| Village Gal | Posted – 7/1/2008 9:24:36 PM | show profile wait a minute. the photographer is running a business too and that is a very low rate to ask from a magazine, makes no difference how he acquired the original shot. The magazine is tyring to lowball the photog. I'm sorry this messed up your story but I can't see why you think he's greedy. One way to avoid this in the future is for someone to ascertain the mag's rate for photography before you proceed to write the piece. |
| mae | Posted – 7/1/2008 11:52:13 PM | show profile I agree. $150 per photo is lowballing. Since you've written for this publication for more than 15 years, I'm surprised you're not familiar with their pay scale. |
| mkelly | Posted – 7/2/2008 10:02:38 AM | show profile I'm confused-- did you refrain from working on this assignment until you had a contract? Did the contract specify when you would be paid? Did it omit any reference to the photographer or anyone else? Because the answer should be 'yes' to all three of those things. Don't work with partners. Work with sub-contractors if you must, but always be the sole counter-party to an assignment. Never depend on other people to get your freelance payment for your work. Or am I missing something here? |
| spacedesign | Posted – 7/3/2008 5:02:24 PM | show profile | email poster typo in my original post I wrote 15 years. it was supposed to be 1.5 years. BIG difference. sorry for the confusion ------ http://senseofplacewriter.blogspot.com/ |
| spacedesign | Posted – 7/3/2008 5:12:29 PM | show profile | email poster this photographer isn't a partner as in we're legally bound to each other. it's just that we work together on some projects. and i do honestly believe this is easy cash for him. he doesn't have to pitch. he's already been paid. this is just bringing in extra money for photos he's already worked on. yes, this publication does lowball. they have WFHs and claim all rights to each article. i can understand that they're not accustomed to paying for photography since the designers, architects, etc. that hope to be published in it give their photos freely. i can also understand that they can easily afford $150/shot. i feel for both the photographer and the publisher. but then what does the photog. lose by not selling the shots? it's money he wouldn't otherwise have had. yes, it is now a bit more of my responsibility to find out if the publication pays for shots or take their own and how much they pay photographers. otherwise i didn't want to know how much they were paid, kind of a private matter I think. that's why i let the photog. do his own negotiation. I have learned since this fiasco to communicate more with the photogs and let them know they won't exactly get rich selling editorial. in the end i want the articles to be mutually beneficial for everyone involved. ------ http://senseofplacewriter.blogspot.com/ |
| mae | Posted – 7/3/2008 9:01:37 PM | show profile What does he have to lose? Perhaps the rights to his own photos? |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 7/4/2008 1:27:42 AM | show profile I think one thing you'll learn from this Space is that photographers tend to be better businesspeople than writers. They are more likely to turn down a pub if they don't pay enough or want rights the photog doesn't want to grant. I know from your standard it looks like the photog is turning down money. But usually, in the long run, photogs do better with this attitude. The bottom line is if you are going to do projects that are bundling the services of other creative people -- photogs, designers, copyeditors etc. -- you shouldn't assume what rate they'll accept without asking. I often have marketing people I work with call me up and discuss what writing rate I would want for a project before they bid on it. |
| Village Gal | Posted – 7/6/2008 4:50:56 PM | show profile Dribble makes a good point about the rights. it is also possible the mag wants some rights the photog refuses to sell. It's not a good deal if the mag is doing a rights grab the photog does not like. |
| princess | Posted – 7/7/2008 11:30:17 AM | show profile The company I work for is very stingy about paying for photos and even we wouldn't offer less than $150 per shot. As I've had to make clear to my boss many times?and others have said here too?the photographer is in business to make money, not a volunteer. If you want to work with him again, then maybe the way to go is to offer the text/photo package as a set fee. I had a garden photographer who proposed a piece that he shot and with text from a writer I was familiar with. I don't remember their fee, but I thought it was a fair way to propose it up front like that. Because my company often buys in bulk from certain photographers, we've worked it out with a few of them to pay a $150 flat fee per shot. They prefer this because they're getting more some smaller images and it makes their photo research worthwhile for them. And I'm curious about the homeowners having paid the photographer?never had this happen. I've been in situations where the homeowner gets a location fee, although most don't ask for one since they just want photos and copies of the issue they're in. Another time I would discuss money with your photo partner prior to making any proposals and also check w/the publication as to their budget/guidelines for these packages. |
| jerseygirlstockimages | Posted – 7/19/2008 1:32:25 AM | show profile | email poster working with photographers I'm new here, but as a photojournalist and stock photographer I can certainly understand where the photographer is coming from. Photographers do not "sell" their images; they license the rights to publish them. That usage fee is in addition to the creative/shooting fee, production costs, and travel fees. If the publication wanted a "rights grab" he probably felt compelled to walk away from it. And for $150/image in a design magazine, I probably would have, too. I think this boils down to a communication problem. You need to make it clear to the editor you pitch to that you prefer to work with a particular photographer, that his fee is in addition to your fee, and all three parties need to negotiate the deal before the work is started. Hard lesson to swallow, but better luck next time. |
| flight risk | Posted – 7/19/2008 5:30:10 AM | show profile You don't seem to understand that editorial photography pays pretty poorly. Even for big national markets. A photographer can make five times more for an ad job that might take the same amount of time and equipment. So most of the editorial photographers I know make much of their income off selling their stock. Selling all rights for a batch of photos for a low rate is permanently cutting off a revenue stream. It's not just about easy cash. That's a bit insulting. It's about selling a product for what it's worth in each specific case. |
| flight risk | Posted – 7/19/2008 5:42:00 AM | show profile I'd just to add that I know writers go through the same process of reselling stories, but I think stock is a larger share of a photographers income. I do fairly well without selling much stock at all, whereas the editorial photographers I know and have worked with couldn't pay rent without stock sales. |
| abqwriter | Posted – 7/19/2008 9:43:16 AM | show profile I work with my husband on travel pieces, and I've pulled a story before when the publication tried to change the contract to include all digital and reprint rights for one of his photos. Yeah, I lost the clip and wasted the time writing the piece, but that was better than my husband losing all the rights on some gorgeous photography. You should go into a pitch knowing what those working with you will do and won't do. Where is their cutoff? What are they willing to do extra? Talking these points out ahead of time will ensure that as often as possible you are on the same page. When you work as a team, you have to be willing for that to mean losing an assignment when the other team member needs to walk away. Supporting each other in this way will mean that you can trust each other in future projects. |
| tiredtiredtired | Posted – 7/21/2008 12:35:57 PM | show profile You guys are way too kind to the photographer. I am going to go against the grain on this one and say that he/she is being a bit of a prima donna if they went so far as to get the story canceled. Yes, the magazine is lowballing, but now look at the situation: no one is making money. You should see if the magazine is interested in having the place reshot by a different photographer. If not, take your kill fee and sell the story somewhere else. In the future be careful on assignments where you are being paired with this photog. Make sure there is a firm agreement between him/her and the magazine before you commit a year of your time to working on an assignment together. While it's the photographer's job to make sure he/she doesn't get lowballed, it's your job to make sure you're not wasting your time working on assignments that are going to get torpedoed by someone/something out of your control. Don't think for a minute that you should feel sorry for the photographer though (as some here would want you to believe). They obviously cared more about their resell rate than you making your first dollar on this house. Look out for yourself. |
