Possibly a new way to make money on your existing photo shoots.

[ClickAddict]

I think what many people are focussing on is the photographer selling the same photo. What I think the op is looking for is something like the following:

Photographer is contracted by company ABC to take photo of ABC's miracle car wax product.
Photographer sets up shoot as per clients request with a male model dressed as greasy mechanic and another model in a bikini. (one to show that the product is industry tough and another to show easy to use. (Yes I'm being very stereotypical... it's just an example) The shot ABC is looking for has the models using the product on a car and motorcycle. (She's riding a Harley to appease the Pc crowd )

Photographer posts to his website something along the lines of: Shoot detail keywords: Male model Mechanic, Female bikini, sports car, Harley motorcycle, garage, suburban driveway....

company XYZ is looking for a shot of a mechanic under a car (lower body), top hidden beneath car.

They search for Mechanic and find this photographer.

contact him stating what they want.

Photographer, when planning the shoot hires mechanic model for 3 hours rather than 2. The garage was already paid for, the travel costs are the same.... so for perhaps a few extra dollars to the Mechanic model, and an extra hour shooting, he takes a few extra shots and gets what both companies want. not the same photo, and no different than hiring the same model for two projects which neither company would argue about.

I think it's a great idea. I think it would work incredibly well....ONCE you have the massive volume of photographers and companies using it. That ramping up though is a killer and in my opinion will cause this to fail. Company goes looking and until there is enough variety of photographers, they will be disappointed and not come back. Without companies using it, photographers are posting all this info and not getting hits... they will stop using it.

Ok, so lets assume I'm the art director of the project for which the original photo was taken, one that I paid for.

I find a photo from the same photoshoot I paid for - not the same photo I selected but one from the same shoot, being used by a competitor on their website and discover that the photographer I hired sold it to them through this service, and worse yet they paid far less for it than I did because the photographer used me to finance most of the costs of the shoot.

How likely am I to every hire that photographer again? Well for me personally the answer to that would be never. In fact I'd probably go out of my way to make it known that said photographer was doing something pretty underhanded and that he was not the sort of person you'd want to do business with under any circumstances.

Legally, yes, the photographer could do this.. ethically it's a completely different story, most people who are hiring this photographer probably wouldn't consider this ethical behavior at all.

Then of course there is the matter of the site itself - if you "put the photographer in contact" with the business that wants the photo, well you just shot yourself in the foot if your the guy running the website. Nothing prevents the photographer from eliminating you as the middle man and selling it through your site.

So you'd have to set something up where the photographer would have to upload the pictures to your site and the buyer would have to purchase them from there.. but of course in doing so you as the site owner are now selling the photos to the buyer, not the photographer.

Which means you'd better cover your butt 16 ways from Sunday legally. You'd better get signed modeling releases from the photographer, make sure all the permits are in order, etc, ad infinitum - because you've just become legally responsible. It's not insurmountable of course, but it is expensive to get all of the legal stuff sorted out to make sure your covered. It also makes it more complicated because you will have to require the photographer to do a lot more than just spend a few minutes uploading the photograph. If you don't then odds are good you'll be leaving yourself open for serious legal hassles down the road. You can't just go to court and say, well the photographer said they had a release.. because your the one selling the photograph.

If your not the one selling the photograph, well then you just killed your own revenue stream, unless of course you charge the clients or the photographer for the "introduction" - but nobody is going to want to pay you just for an introduction, they want a finished product before they hand over cash.

The photos would have to be fairly different of course. It's not hard to move a few things around, have model change wardrobe, use different props... enough to make it different. And if it's different enough, there no difference in this being 2 shoots you happen to book back to back to save on location / travel costs for instance. It comes down to.. do you ever charge some clients more than others? If having a slow week do you offer discounts? Because then the same pricing discrepancy exists and can cause the same problem with clients paying more. If not then you would not be interested in this anyway.

But in all honesty, I agree with the issue of clients contacting the photographers directly. That's a major problem that would exist even if you could build the user base up on this thing. Unless the commission is extremely small, they will look to save the money. And you cant offer your photography services without them being able to view your previous work / existing website... which means they then can find you easily enough.

I personally don't see this getting off the ground, I was just pointing out that I felt many seemed stuck on the selling the "same" photo problem when I didn't believe that's the service the op was proposing.

The reverse of this actually already exists. A company can post a photo shoot they want a freelancer to shoot for them. (There are a variety of online freelance job sites, some of which have photography categories) From a client company point of view, that's much easier anyway. They state the job, the price they are willing to pay and wait for the photographers to approach them.

 

[Designer]

It seems you're getting mostly reasons why it won't work or create unforeseen problems. Can you outline for us a typical payout structure? Start with the secondary client. How much does he pay? How much does the photographer make? Who pays the photographer? How does the owner of the website get paid? How much would he typically make on a deal? How does the breakdown go for licensing? And anything else that I haven't listed.

 

[robbins.photo]

The photos would have to be fairly different of course. It's not hard to move a few things around, have model change wardrobe, use different props... enough to make it different. And if it's different enough, there no difference in this being 2 shoots you happen to book back to back to save on location / travel costs for instance. It comes down to.. do you ever charge some clients more than others? If having a slow week do you offer discounts? Because then the same pricing discrepancy exists and can cause the same problem with clients paying more. If not then you would not be interested in this anyway.

But in all honesty, I agree with the issue of clients contacting the photographers directly. That's a major problem that would exist even if you could build the user base up on this thing. Unless the commission is extremely small, they will look to save the money. And you cant offer your photography services without them being able to view your previous work / existing website... which means they then can find you easily enough.

I personally don't see this getting off the ground, I was just pointing out that I felt many seemed stuck on the selling the "same" photo problem when I didn't believe that's the service the op was proposing.

The reverse of this actually already exists. A company can post a photo shoot they want a freelancer to shoot for them. (There are a variety of online freelance job sites, some of which have photography categories) From a client company point of view, that's much easier anyway. They state the job, the price they are willing to pay and wait for the photographers to approach them.

I get where your coming from, I just see this as fraught with problems from the photographers perspective. If you don't tell the client that your doing the photoshoot for about the fact that you might be selling photos to others, well if the client finds out after the fact they are likely to be extremely ticked off. Especially when you consider the fact that the people who are most likely going to be interested in shots from that photoshoot are most likely business competitors of some sort.

If you do tell the client your doing the original shoot for, I guess the first question they would want answered is why am I paying full price for photos that someone else is getting for a lot less? Why am I paying you as the photographer for your time on this photoshoot when the other guy is only having to pay for the final product?

Either way your looking at damaging your reputation with the client, and frankly almost every professional photographer I know has told me at one time or the other that their business relies heavily on two things, repeat customers and referrals.

 

[Vtec44]

If you do tell the client your doing the original shoot for, I guess the first question they would want answered is why am I paying full price for photos that someone else is getting for a lot less? Why am I paying you as the photographer for your time on this photoshoot when the other guy is only having to pay for the final product?

This.

Someone has to fund it, but someone else is getting a knock off of it for much cheaper. Unless the photographer him/herself is doing the funding, I don't think it would go over well with the client(s) who paid full price for it. I also see possible legal issues unless it's fully disclosed.

So many holes...

 

[vintagesnaps]

If a photographer's being paid to do a photo shoot he/she can't take pictures for another client at the same time on the client's dime. The concept seems unprofessional and unethical. And if a photographer doesn't have a client, why would they be doing a shoot?

I don't think a photographer can expect clients to sign releases for other commercial use elsewhere. There have already been situations where someone's image was used in an ad and the person didn't realize that's how their image was going to be used. (I don't offhand remember the outcomes.)

There are so many ways
that the photographer or the client can cheat or steal from each other.

Are you promoting this?? I hope that's not what you meant...

The art directors are all being paid for their time and work and expertise, aren't they? So are photographers. Providing quality photos takes more than 'a minute' or two emailing them out. Get on American Society of Media Photographers for info. on what's involved in licensing professional photography; look at 'paperwork' share where photographers list actual jobs and contracts (only a couple of examples are available to nonmembers). If art directors need specific photos then they're probably going to need to contract with a professional photographer.

Part of the reason art directors probably can't find good stock photos might be that it seems to have become overrun with wannabees with cameras and isn't the most viable option for pro photographers anymore. However, there are listings thru the Photo District News PDN Online | Photo Magazine | Pro Photography News & Gear for photo agencies that handle stock. Using agencies might be a step above the do-it-yourself stock sites out there where anybody with a camera can license photos for pennies.

 

[NickArt]

If a photographer's being paid to do a photo shoot he/she can't take pictures for another client at the same time on the client's dime. The concept seems unprofessional and unethical. And if a photographer doesn't have a client, why would they be doing a shoot?

I don't think a photographer can expect clients to sign releases for other commercial use elsewhere. There have already been situations where someone's image was used in an ad and the person didn't realize that's how their image was going to be used. (I don't offhand remember the outcomes.)

There are so many ways
that the photographer or the client can cheat or steal from each other.

Are you promoting this?? I hope that's not what you meant...

The art directors are all being paid for their time and work and expertise, aren't they? So are photographers. Providing quality photos takes more than 'a minute' or two emailing them out. Get on American Society of Media Photographers for info. on what's involved in licensing professional photography; look at 'paperwork' share where photographers list actual jobs and contracts (only a couple of examples are available to nonmembers). If art directors need specific photos then they're probably going to need to contract with a professional photographer.

Part of the reason art directors probably can't find good stock photos might be that it seems to have become overrun with wannabees with cameras and isn't the most viable option for pro photographers anymore. However, there are listings thru the Photo District News PDN Online | Photo Magazine | Pro Photography News & Gear for photo agencies that handle stock. Using agencies might be a step above the do-it-yourself stock sites out there where anybody with a camera can license photos for pennies.

You are taking my quote out of context. This is my full quote:

There are so many ways that the photographer or the client can cheat or steal from each other. For example, I could take a photo for a client, then turn around and sell it on stock agencies, does that mean stock agencies are bad ideas? Unfortunately, there are going to be bad players no matter what service is out there, I just need to make sure I do everything to protect the good players.

Of course I'm not promoting or condoning any unethical or illegal activities.

As I mentioned in my original post:

Of course, this won’t work for all photo shoots, for instance, if another client is already paying you for it.

And repeated it few other times in this thread that if you're on an assignment paid by a client, you wouldn't be able to use this service on that photo shoot.

 

[NickArt]

If you do tell the client your doing the original shoot for, I guess the first question they would want answered is why am I paying full price for photos that someone else is getting for a lot less? Why am I paying you as the photographer for your time on this photoshoot when the other guy is only having to pay for the final product?

This.

Some has to fund it, but someone else is getting a knock off of it for much cheaper. Unless the photographer him/herself is doing the funding, I don't think it would go over well with the client(s) who paid full price for it. I also see possible legal issues unless it's fully disclosed.

So many holes...

You wouldn't use this service for photo shoot that's being funded by a client.

 

[Designer]

You wouldn't use this service for photo shoot that's being funded by a client.

Oh, whew! For a while there I was afraid this idea was not going to work.

 

[robbins.photo]

You wouldn't use this service for photo shoot that's being funded by a client.

Then your back to .. oh look, stock photography.

If you take a pro to a location and pay him to shoot then you've got a product that isn't pretty much the same as you can get from any stock photo website, which is how this was pitched but then of course you have serious conflict of interest issues and the pro's clients are probably (and rightfully) going to get seriously hacked off. But supposedly your end user is getting a price break based on the fact that the pro is already there being paid to shoot, right?

If instead you have a pro that sets up a specific shoot for your client.. well then guess what, there's not price break involved because the pro is still going to have to do the same he does on any other shoot. He's going to have to specifically invest his time, pay the models, etc, etc, etc... Nobody else is covering those costs so there is no price reduction for the Art Director in all this, he might as well hire any local pro so at least he can supervise the shoot and make sure he gets what he wants.

Sorry, whatever your vision is here it's obviously not coming across to me, at all. If such is the case, just imagine how incredibly difficult this is going to be to market.

 

[NickArt]

My point is the capabilities and the opportunities are there, it’s just up to the photographer to see what resources they have available, that could be used to make extra money.

Ok, but see that really doesn't work that well when you stop and think about it. If I'm out shooting a wedding and want to setup a bowl of fruit at the hotel and shoot that.. great.. but why would a guy pay me huge dinero for an image he can get from pretty much any stock website? They wouldn't of course.

The whole "selling point" of your concept is that the photo's aren't just your standard stock photography fare, right? Sadly though this leads to an almost inherit conflict of interest situation that has been detailed before.

Sorry but you did ask for brutal honesty.

Again, I appreciate the brutal honesty.

A guy wouldn't pay you a huge dinero for a photo of a bowl of fruit that can get from any stock site because it's a generic photo.

However, what if they are looking for a bowl of fruit that has a uncooked meat on it because they want to communicate awareness and healthy eating.

or even less specific, what if they are looking for a bowl of fruit that has a glass of green smoothy front it.
can they find it from stock sties? maybe couple between all the stock sites, but certainly will not have enough to find the one that works.

even less specific than that, what if they are looking for a bowl of fruit but they need the photo to be framed in a way so there is a lot of room on the bottom which they'll use for ad copy. I don't know how much options they'll have getting if from stock sites. Even if they find something close, they'll have to spend time and money photoshopping it for it to work. So at the end, it will still cost them more than the price of the stock so paying that extra amount to the photographer and get a more natural result would be a better choice for them.

Any of these scenarios are very similar to the real pain points that I've seen clients experience. But if a photographer is shooting a bowl of fruit, it would be relatively simple adjustment for their shoot to get the photo they need.

 

[astroNikon]

You wouldn't use this service for photo shoot that's being funded by a client.

Then your back to .. oh look, stock photography.

If you take a pro to a location and pay him to shoot then you've got a product that isn't pretty much the same as you can get from any stock photo website, which is how this was pitched but then of course you have serious conflict of interest issues and the pro's clients are probably (and rightfully) going to get seriously hacked off. But supposedly your end user is getting a price break based on the fact that the pro is already there being paid to shoot, right?

If instead you have a pro that sets up a specific shoot for your client.. well then guess what, there's not price break involved because the pro is still going to have to do the same he does on any other shoot. He's going to have to specifically invest his time, pay the models, etc, etc, etc... Nobody else is covering those costs so there is no price reduction for the Art Director in all this, he might as well hire any local pro so at least he can supervise the shoot and make sure he gets what he wants.

Sorry, whatever your vision is here it's obviously not coming across to me, at all. If such is the case, just imagine how incredibly difficult this is going to be to market.

Add a NON-Pro to the equation and the concept could work for a bit as the non-pros rotate up the food chain. Of course, the quality aspect of it then comes into play more vs a seasoned pro.

The key is trying to make money while trying NOT to be an agent to the Client or the Photog. Liabilities can them come into play such as promoting a photog that doesn't quit live up to expectations, or disaster as mentioned earlier.

If the OP thinks the concept would work then, as before, I say Fund it and Go for it.

 

[robbins.photo]

Add a NON-Pro to the equation and the concept could work for a bit as the non-pros rotate up the food chain. Of course, the quality aspect of it then comes into play more vs a seasoned pro.

The key is trying to make money while trying NOT to be an agent to the Client or the Photog. Liabilities can them come into play such as promoting a photog that doesn't quit live up to expectations, or disaster as mentioned earlier.

If the OP thinks the concept would work then, as before, I say Fund it and Go for it.

I guess the piece that I'm missing here is somehow this is supposed to appeal to a pro because they'll only be spending a very small amount of time shooting stuff because they are already there shooting anyway and getting paid for it. But if such is the case how is that supposed to be if they are not on a shoot for another client?

If they have to setup a shoot that is not related to a client shoot, then how does that save the photographer any time or money? I mean once you stipulate this would not be done on another clients shoot, all the "savings" go out the window and for the photographer this becomes just like any other paid, professional shoot, right?

 

[Vtec44]

You wouldn't use this service for photo shoot that's being funded by a client.

I wouldn't use it, or provide it. If a shoot is being funded by a client, they have my full attention. Anything else would be unprofessional and unethical of me. Even with full disclosure, it would create a bad impression of me as a professional, and my company as a brand.

 

[407370]

There is a kernel of a good idea here.
How about turning it around a little.....

1. I want a pic of a black rose sitting between a giant diamond and a unicorn with a cabbage as the background.
2. I go to your site and register the request for free.
3. The photographers registered to your site see the request and make submissions to the request.
4. I can then view all the submissions on a given date and make a selection, at which point money changes hands.
5. The photog gets his cut, the web site owner gets his cut and I get what I want.
6. I will obviously get a cut for coming up with the idea.

 

[astroNikon]

Add a NON-Pro to the equation and the concept could work for a bit as the non-pros rotate up the food chain. Of course, the quality aspect of it then comes into play more vs a seasoned pro.

The key is trying to make money while trying NOT to be an agent to the Client or the Photog. Liabilities can them come into play such as promoting a photog that doesn't quit live up to expectations, or disaster as mentioned earlier.

If the OP thinks the concept would work then, as before, I say Fund it and Go for it.

I guess the piece that I'm missing here is somehow this is supposed to appeal to a pro because they'll only be spending a very small amount of time shooting stuff because they are already there shooting anyway and getting paid for it. But if such is the case how is that supposed to be if they are not on a shoot for another client?

If they have to setup a shoot that is not related to a client shoot, then how does that save the photographer any time or money? I mean once you stipulate this would not be done on another clients shoot, all the "savings" go out the window and for the photographer this becomes just like any other paid, professional shoot, right?

Yes,
you have to think what *if* the photog was on a shoot that was not paid for by anyone and not needing the attention nor specific time (day and amount needed) for a shoot.

In order for that model to work successfully it would probably be a non-(seasoned)-pro shooting. ie we know if you get paid for anything then that can constitute a "pro".

So geared more towards the people just wandering around with a camera on vacation or something. Or on a self-trip if taking landscapes, or in a restaurant where they throw their hamburger patty on top of their salad.

Anything more than what's available in front of them would require planning. Increasing quality would require additional lighting, etc. All of which has to be paid for. But per plan this is not part of the equation. Thus the equation is non-seasoned-pro for the most part from what I can gather.