Please advise

photographyfanatic · Jun 22, 2009

Thanks all!!!

musicaleCA · Jun 22, 2009

A lifetime, exclusive license ought to have a very heavy fee attached to it. I'd be asking for $2,000 per photo at least (the opinion of a non-pro who isn't deep into this business yet, mind you), and even then I'd be very hesitant. Giving them such a license means that you can never again use those photos, for anything. Portfolio, online display, resale. Exclusive means exclusive, and given the quality of your work, you really ought to charge a whole whack of cash per photo for such a restricting license.

Maybe ask if they'd consider a non-exclusive license, that would restrict your use of the photos but not prohibit it. Say, that you're still allowed to use the photos for your portfolio or self-promotion, but not for resale. Just a thought.

(Aside: Given that your work far, far, far outstrips what they've got on their website right now, remember that you're the one in the best position to bargain. I bet they really, really do want your photos, and might give a little ground if you ask them in the right way. Oh, and finally, those photos are freaking fantastic. Great work, sir. :thumbup: )

photographyfanatic · Jun 22, 2009

First off thanks for the kudos musicallCA!!! But it is miss not sir! LOL! Well I didn't say I would give them exclusive rights, just considering giving them lifetime web use rights and am still considering licensing for a set term, say one year. Should I charge a lump fee or charge per image? I just can't wrap my brain around it yet.

kundalini · Jun 22, 2009

One year useage max, then get a re-shoot for them to update their website and pay you again.

You should offer only a few images that you select. A lot of the shots have (what looks like) unintended motion blur. Pick your best only.

I haven't a clue as to how much to charge, but you should be well compensated for a year's worth of their advertising.

photographyfanatic · Jun 22, 2009

All intended blur. It's the style I was going for. They are fanatastic dancers and IMO they were best captured with blur and not all stop motion.

But thanks for the other advise.

musicaleCA · Jun 22, 2009

I didn't think it was unintended. I like blur. :greenpbl:

I would stay with a one-year license if you can. In the end how you charge is totally up to you, but give yourself some consideration for how much time and effort you put into each image. That blur is certainly worth charging a decent creative fee for. If you spent time in post retouching each image individually, count that toward the final cost too. Just try to make sure you can still use the images for your own things like your portfolio.

photographyfanatic · Jun 22, 2009

I really like some of those blur shots musicale! One of them looks like a nun or Indian woman in full garb. Very cool! Thanks for the advise.

kundalini · Jun 22, 2009

I may have been slightly misunderstood. There are those where the the blur is absolutely essential to get the vibe and energy of the evening, but likewise, there are those that shouldn't have been. Those that shouldn't have been, shouldn't be passed on for sale.

musicaleCA · Jun 22, 2009

Point.

JNR: If you mean the one I linked to, she's actually a friend at a party (my flash was overheating, so while it sat in the fridge to cool off for a bit, I decided to get creative). No fancy dress, but you're right, it might just look that way. Part of the reason I have some love for crazy shots like that. ^.^

Nicholas James Photo · Jun 23, 2009

I would substitute the word blur for atmospheric. I looked at the link and this gave the group xxxxxxxxand noticed that they do some fundraising etc. Good on them….. Yes your pics are much better than those on their site. If they were the Rolling Stones (showing my age) then the sky is the limit. When Mick Jagger says he wants your photos you will hear the cash register ringing. However, we don’t know what sort of earning capacity these 4 bands have and whilst that is none of our business it is something that you should consider. There is little or no point in say pitching at $/£2000 if they work on a shoe string and it would be foolish to ask mick jagger for $/£10. Somewhere, there is the right figure. I would talk to them about usage first and at the same time try to sound out in your mind what they can afford. I know this is not exactly helpful but it really is a recurring problem in photography – what do I charge. You will find (and this info is of no practical use) that the correct price to sell a pic is exactly the same as the maximum they are willing to pay.
I have just read this back, and decided that it is fairly useless drivel but hey it's 6.22 am here.

photographyfanatic · Jun 23, 2009

HI all! Anyone responding to this post please do not use the actual name of the band I am referring to. I don't want them to stumble upon this post. Thanks!

Andrew Boyd · Jun 23, 2009

A couple of things to consider: IF they'll give you online credit for the work, and IF you realistically have no other monetary gains to be made from the photos--in other words, this is "found" money--AND you'd like to have them hire you next time in advance--then charge them whatever you consider your current "Day" rate to be. Remember, since you weren't commissioned to shoot this, these are really "stock" photos.
Give them a written invoice that spells out what the rights usage is they're buying, for how long.