PR Pricing...not sure what to charge

[photogir2002]

A woman I've worked for before called me today and asked me to shoot something for a construction union to be used to publicize them.

They want to use the images for billboards, newspaper advertising etc. and called me last minute -- they want the shots on Friday. Today is, yes, Wednesday.

I'm not sure 1) What to charge and 2) what to be sure to set the photos at resolution wise if they use them on billboards.

They are looking for one group shot and a few single shots of construction workers in front of a well known building near where I live.

Family has suggested I charge as much as $2,000. Is that reasonable, or just crazy? This is a fairly small, rural area, but local photographers would probably charge even more than that for a shoot like this. Any advice?

 

[CNCO]

if you can get it and you are happy then do it. i wouldnt pay 2k for a one day shoot.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

There are two distinct things to charge for here: the shoot itself and the usage fees. Sometimes I don't charge for the shoot if it is simple enough and the usage fees bring in a lot of money.

I would not do this however for a union. The people who run union usually make tons of money

How much you charge depends on a few things: your experience, how well known you are, the local market, etc for the shoot. How many billboards, where, what publications, how many issues, etc for the usage fees.

I take it you have little or no experience with sales of your work or you would not be asking your question. That, unfortunately, is how you get screwed when you start especially when you have to come up with a fee in no time.

Also, don't forget to have a contract that spells out the details of the deal, both for the shoot and the usage.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

By the way, $2000 is not crazy at all depending on the situation. In this case it seems low to me based on the little we know.

 

[Studio7Four]

I can't help you on the pricing side (though I agree that for the customer and the usage, $2K is certainly not exorbitant). But one additional point to consider is that if you are using a "well known building" you may need a property release for the building to appear in your shots. I don't know the law and how it applies to your usage, so I'm not positive, but it's something I recommend you look into.

 

[KmH]

But one additional point to consider is that if you are using a "well known building" you may need a property release for the building to appear in your shots.

From Photography Not Allowed | Photo Attorney

So what’s the law on this? First, while some buildings are protected by copyright, the US Copyright Act provides an exception for photography of architectural works:

The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.
​

For the OP I recommend you look at http://www.cradocfotosoftware.com/fotoQuote-Pro/index.html and their fotoQuote Pro 6 software that is used by commeercial photographers for jobs like you may have tomorrow.

Commercial photography (shoot something for a construction union to be used to publicize them) has a very different pricing model than does retail photography (Event and portraiture photography).

You might also want to visit www.asmp.org and on the left click on their "Business Resources" tab.

 

[Studio7Four]

Thanks for the link and info, Keith. I'm not arguing (really!), just making sure I (and anyone else reading this) am clear - does this photography exception strictly apply to advertising shots? I can understand that an architectural portrait, if you will, in which the subject is the graceful lines of a building for example, is exempt. However, when the building is in the photo not for aspects of its design but because it is "The XYZ Building", does this apply? I do believe that when landmark buildings are used in TV and movies, such as to set the location for the viewer, royalties are paid (the TransAmerica building as it appeared in the opening credits of Charmed comes to mind). In this case the construction workers want to be photographed in front of a particular building. If it is only because that building has features which would make an interesting background I agree with you that no release is likely needed. However, if the point of including that building is to draw a relationship between the union and "The XYZ Building" (whether there is an actual relationship there or not), they're gaining from the building's reputation and not strictly from its visible architecture. I can see that this is at least a grey area. Besides, even if a release is not strictly needed, if the photographer can get one (or if the union who, if they have legitimate ties, probably have the connections, can) then there's nothing to worry about down the road.