What should I charge for usage of a photo in a tv show for a major network?

[jaomul]

No idea on money but it is a nice shot.

 

[PhotoWrangler]

Why do people turn to internet forums for business advice? Seriously... its like going to a barber for brain surgery.

 

[Jessiedee]

Why do people turn to internet forums for business advice? Seriously... its like going to a barber for brain surgery.

I agree but I was just trying to get some advice from people who might have been in the same situation as me. This is just a starting point to see where I should actually go with this....Why would I pay hundreds of dollars off the bat for a lawyer when I barely have an idea of what I'm getting into. Regardless, this IS a forum and I'm sure I don't have to remind you the definition of that.

If you have anyone that you think might be better to speak to - feel free to chime in anytime!

 

[PhotoWrangler]

Why would I pay hundreds of dollars off the bat for a lawyer when I barely have an idea of what I'm getting into.

You answered your own question.

Start with an attorney who is familiar with the arts and intellectual property rights. In Texas we have an organization called TALA - Texas Accountants and Lawyers for the Arts. You pay $50 for an annual membership, and the professional accountants and lawyers volunteer their time for free or deeply discounted rates. They offer advice, consults, and provide you with necessary guidance to protect you, your investments, and your work. They can also refer you to other organizations and professionals in the business, and help you with establishing your rates.

That's why you would start with an attorney, or at the very least an arts council in your area.

ETA: or PPA. They have an entire division dedicated to helping photographers in these situations.

 

[mjhoward]

I was thinking about asking for around $350ish.

That's crazy talk! They're going to LOVE doing business with you.

 

[KmH]

The television people want to use your photo because they expect to get use of it for a lot less than an experienced photographer would charge.

A stock photograph used at 1/2 page size in a magazine advertisement that will have a print run of 1 to 3 million magazines is worth from $900 to $2000. - http://photographersindex.com/price-adv-calc.htm

One to 3 million should be low in the ballpark of audience numbers for a TV network show.

 

[Jessiedee]

The television people want to use your photo because they expect to get use of it for a lot less than an experienced photographer would charge.
A stock photograph used at 1/2 page size in a magazine advertisement that will have a print run of 1 to 3 million magazines is worth from $900 to $2000. - http://photographersindex.com/price-adv-calc.htm

One to 3 million should be low in the ballpark of audience numbers for a TV network show.

I don't want to scare them away nor do I want to get screwed. $1100 would be nice to think about but I don't want to get passed up either...

I get that and I want to price it accordingly. However, I don't think they skipped over the several other very experienced photographers of her just to choose me because I was going to be cheap... This girl isn't kate moss but she's an established agency model.

 

[imagemaker46]

You'd be surprised at how little they will offer you for the use of a single image. Your best bet is to see what Getty charges, most tv/film companies base a lot on what agencies charge. I discovered this a couple of years ago when dealing with a TV network here in Canada, I asked them what they were willing to pay and they just said "we pay between a-b" it was lower than expected, but still fell into an amount I could work with. It was less than $500. I have since been selling additional images to them and have also set my selling fees for tv/film at the same price for everyone.

The same applies for some of the big companies, like Nike, they used to pay some very nice money, now the going rate for single image use is around $1000.

If you bring a lawyer into the picture, you will walk away with far less than you think. You can thank the big agencies like Getty for the fees that are being paid out these days.

 

[imagemaker46]

I was thinking about asking for around $350ish.

That's crazy talk! They're going to LOVE doing business with you.

That's reality and most likely close to what you can expect them to pay.

 

[mjhoward]

Nike, they used to pay some very nice money, now the going rate for single image use is around $1000.

If you bring a lawyer into the picture, you will walk away with far less than you think. You can thank the big agencies like Getty for the fees that are being paid out these days.

Agencies like Getty wouldn't really exist without photographers devaluing their work. As long as people continue to essentially give their work away, agencies and consumers will continue to take advantage and try and get you to devalue your product even further.

 

[imagemaker46]

Companies like Getty set the prices and have continued to keep prices low, they sell on high output and a massive number of images being dumped out from every event. It used to be that shooting an NHL hockey game could get the experienced Getty shooters $400-500 per game, now Getty is using other less experienced shooters and paying them $100-200 per game. From each game they want a cut of 20 good images going out on the wire after the first period, another 20 after the second period and then 30-40 after the game is over. It used to be, before Getty came along, and the wire services were the top dogs, Reuters, AP, CP, AFP, that a couple of pictures were sent out after the first period and in most cases that was it. Digital now has the wire services having to compete with Getty and yet they still pay the same to shoot a game, $100-150, for way more work.

Getty started the fast food photography, just pump out as many pictures as possible, doesn't always matter how good the stuff looks, more is better. This is what has driven the prices down, not photographers devaluing their work, the choice is, shoot for what they offer, or don't shoot at all. There are a lot of skilled pros out there struggling to make ends meet and have to take the work, regardless of the fees they get paid.

It really sucks, but it is the new reality of professional photography.

 

[mjhoward]

This is what has driven the prices down, not photographers devaluing their work, the choice is, shoot for what they offer, or don't shoot at all.

Exactly. Shooting for what they offer, much less, is devaluing the work. If I, as a software developer, told someone it would cost $10k to build their app and they turned around and offered $3k to do the same job and I accepted, I've either told them I wasn't worth what I was asking to begin with or I've done my part to help devalue the profession.

 

[Ballistics]

Why do people turn to internet forums for business advice? Seriously... its like going to a barber for brain surgery.

What's the difference between asking established professionals in person, vs established professionals on the internet? Besides, there's nothing wrong with utilizing all resources.

 

[imagemaker46]

And so the photographers tell Getty "I'm worth $1000" and Getty turns around and says "good for you, but we only pay $200" So the photographer turns down shooting an entire NHL season at $200 per game and making $8000, over saying "But I'm worth $1000 per game" To Getty he is worth $200. So what you are saying is turn down $8000 because it devalues you being a photographer and driving down an industry that has already been devalued by all the weekend professionals? I'd rather be guaranteed $8000 than zero, I'd rather be working than sitting at home doing nothing. The whole professional market changed with digital, it is a reality, it also means that professional photographers are now accepting jobs at a lesser fee because there is always someone standing behind them with a camera willing to take that job. This is my reality, that I work in.

I'm in the business, have been for a very long time, I've seen how the market has changed and I've seen how the big companies are offering far less than they used to, and in order to stay in the business the majority of professionals have had to make changes to work.

I used to shoot for football and hockey card companies, I'd get paid $100 per picture for the use on a card, good money if you sell them 200 pictures, now the one football card company that I no longer shoot for offered me $25 per card, if I sold them 10 pictures I would be lucky as they are now getting pictures from every amateur that gets accredited to shoot a game. It costs me more to get to the game and shoot than I would be making, but all these amateurs are happy to show off the photo on the. The Card company devalued the photos in order to stay in business.


If you can turn down $3000 then good for you to sticking up for what you believe will hold your market strong. The guy that accepts the $3000 banks the money, and you bank zero. At the end of the day someone is always standing behind you that will be more than happy to take 10 jobs at $3000.

 

[mjhoward]

And so the photographers tell Getty "I'm worth $1000" and Getty turns around and says "good for you, but we only pay $200" So the photographer turns down shooting an entire NHL season at $200 per game and making $8000, over saying "But I'm worth $1000 per game" To Getty he is worth $200. So what you are saying is turn down $8000 because it devalues you being a photographer and driving down an industry that has already been devalued by all the weekend professionals?

They only pay $200 because too many photographers have said that is acceptable, else they wouldn't 'only pay $200' or they wouldn't have any photos to sell themselves. Getting photographers to DEVALUE themselves is why Getty is worth over 3 BILLION and you're working for peanuts. So to reiterate, please refer to post #25.