Interior/new business photography - client wants copyright. What to do??

[brierphoto]

I'm really stumped on this one!

I work for a local company that has quite a few franchises on the west coast, and we are expanding now to the east coast. My position with this company has nothing to do with photography.

However, I was approached by my boss (knowing that I do freelance work) and asked to "contract with me" and bring my camera equipment to a new store opening to take some photos of the interior, signage, etc. They obviously will be using these photos to further market the company to potential franchisees, and perhaps use them in outside advertising and internal promotions.

I plan on charging them a flat fee for the job, about 10-15 images, (somewhat based on what my normal hourly rate for shooting/editing) but he WANTS THE COPYRIGHT. :thumbdown: I've never released my copyright before!

Honestly, what should I charge? This is a company where new franchises cost between 100-300k to open... I work for them for a whoppin' $14/hr. I was thinking somewhere around $500 total, but others have told me I'm about 1000% below normal rates.

Please help!

 

[ghache]

you are clearly bellow normal rates. he wants the copyright? gives him the copyright but at the right price.

 

[Patrice]

The company, like most corporations, is likely very protective of its image in the eye of the public. I understand why they would want copyright. If you insist on keeping it you might not get the commission. Besides, you can always get a copy of whatever media the images appear in. Then you can trot it out to show the work you did 'photo work' for such and such corporate client.

As to the fee. If you will be doing this while on company time for which you are getting paid already then you don't really have much say. However, if you do this on your own time, try and negotiate a fee you and your employer (who is now your client) are comfortable with. Even at $500, that is nearly what you earn in a week, before taxes and deductions. Will it take you a week of time to do this? Base your price on time needed and reasonable rate of pay for such time and the level of skill required. Have a frank discussion of requirements and liabilities before talking money.

 

[KmH]

As to the fee. If you will be doing this while on company time for which you are getting paid already then you don't really have much say.

Actually, because photography is not part of your normal job description/function, you have a lot to say.

Because photography is not your primary job, 'work for hire' rules would not apply and you would own the copyright to all the photos you make. Unless you sign a contract to the contrary.
Copyright ownership is for the rest of your life + 70 years, so you should charge accordingly for your sopyright. Ultimately, copyright is the only thing of intrinsic value a photographer produces.

My minimum for full copyright transfer is $5000 per image, and that is for out-takes I was going to delete anyway.
See Circular 9 at www.copyright.gov.

You also have to consider that Patrice is right in that they can always get someone else to make the photos.

 

[shootermcgavin]

Don't be an idiot, take whatever makes you happy. As someone who owns a marketing firm myself I would laugh if someone I paid 14/hr said they wanted $5000 for a copyright of a couple photos. Unless it's a shot you already have and they can't duplicate there's always someone who will do it for less and they're in the business to find that person. It's a great way to get your foot in the door and have published images. Now if you were to ask me how to play it, I would give them the charge you were thinking you want but then say but I really need this particular lens and they would need to buy it for you to get the correct shot you are asking for and it's a better way to negotiate as giving a gift is always better than paying a person cash for the business.

 

[tirediron]

I don't really see the copyright to these images as being especially valuable. The subject matter isn't going to be terribly useful to you, so I wouldn't worry too much about that. What I would insist on is a rights/usage clause which will allow you to use the images. A variation of this phrase: "<Your Name> retains the right to use the images for any non-commercial purpose, including, but not limited to: Self-promotion, display, artistic and/or professional accreditation or competition" This way they can have the copyright, and you would still be able to use the images in your portfolio or on your website if they could be an asset.


For 10-15 images, assuming that there's not a lot of work in set-up or post, $500 seems a reasonable fee to me.

 

[LeftCoast]

I would pretty much echo what Patrice said, and try not to get yourself fired over a bunch of interior photos and holding your boss for ransom.
Look at it as long-term goodwill.

 

[MBasile]

I'm not surprised by the company wanting the copyrights, and it doesn't seem out of line to me. What does seem out of line is wanting everything for $500. However, price depends heavily on the quality of your work and ability to do interior architecture shots.

 

[dnavarrojr]

I know it was low, but I did a shoot for a local home builder of the interior for a model home. They also wanted me to sign over the copyright. I did the shoot for my normal fee and sold them the copyright for an additional $1500 (9 images total). I gave them the edited images and the RAW files. As noted by someone else in this thread, the images were mostly useless to me anyway. My copyright assignment did include a clause giving me a license to use the photos for self-promotion so that I could put them on my web site.