Rates for architecture and sports

[ckuang]

There's an ole saying that goes "those who can't end up teaching" I'm one of those that can't take a picture to save my life, so no choice. :cry:

I think he's too busy to shoot, coz he seems to be running workshops or some courses now.

 

[marlboro]

There's an ole saying that goes "those who can't end up teaching" I'm one of those that can't take a picture to save my life, so no choice. :cry:

C'mon man. Surely you have the experience in order to teach.
On the lighter side, more realistic pricing for interior shoots perhaps, that's all to it.
Cheers.

P/s: I've been at it for close to a decade, still no one pays me $25K for an interior pix, no matter the acccolades. So I thought I must've been seriously short-changed. :nono:

 

[ckuang]

Hey guys, I think there's too much fixation on the $25K. Malboro, honestly, speaking, I've never been paid $25K for a photo, not all at one time anyway.

You are right, $25K at one time is a lot for clients to handle, but bit by bit, it is very manageable.

I think the important think to keep in mind here is not how much one charges for all rights perpetual rights, because that's really up to the individual photographer to set. The importance is creating a system where your photos become your retirement fund. Or that's my philosophy anyway.

But honestly, teaching is more fun for me because I get to just hang with photographers and not worry aobut business.

 

[blurrblurr]

But honestly, teaching is more fun for me because I get to just hang with photographers and not worry aobut business.

So when you gona teach!

 

[ckuang]

We still have 2 slots open for "Profit from Passion" on the 18th of April in case you're interested. It's basically about how to make money form weddings, not architecture or sports.

 

[Timber83]

Hey guys, I think there's too much fixation on the $25K. Malboro, honestly, speaking, I've never been paid $25K for a photo, not all at one time anyway.

You are right, $25K at one time is a lot for clients to handle, but bit by bit, it is very manageable.

Of course, it generates so much interest la, $25K is helluva cash for "a photo". But since you have never been paid that amt then where did that reference came about? Wow I would really like to see that $25K picture. hahaha.. :bigeyes:

 

[ckuang]

Ok, ok, to save you the trouble of having to read between the lines , here a sceneario for you that cropped up this year

hey can you shoot this shot for us for in house use-$2000
a month later
hey we really like that shot, can we use if for a print ad in the newspaper- $2000
now the GM says we should use it on the web for the year- $1500
three months later
we were thinking of using it for our public brochure to sell our services in Singapore and Malaysia- $5000
another month later
can we renew all useage for one more year- 10500x2=21000

geddit? The fact of the matter is that rights management is attractive to many companies for several reasons

1. It's easier to get a PO for a smaller amount than a one time payout

2. You the photographer are underwriting the risks of the shoot. You do s sucky job, they just walk away with only having to pay you time. You do a great job, the company and you win because they have a great ad and you get paid more.

3. In the long run, many companies find it easier and cheaper to just renew rights than to comission a whole new shoot.

Honestly, rights management is a very very common practise in the States. i don't know why everyone is so shocked by it here. it's really not that complicated.

 

[ckuang]

My reference comes about from the payment schedule I establish for rights buyout based on time region and medium.

Most professional photographers would have a formula worked out for a buyout. I don't really understand why you think it is so nebulous or astounding. There are photographers out there with far far higher buyout fees than mine.

If you plan on making a living from commercial work, I assume you must be presenting some sort of payment schedule to your clients right? If not what sort of contract are they signing with you?

Of course, it generates so much interest la, $25K is helluva cash for "a photo". But since you have never been paid that amt then where did that reference came about? Wow I would really like to see that $25K picture. hahaha.. :bigeyes:

 

[Timber83]

My reference comes about from the payment schedule I establish for rights buyout based on time region and medium.

Most professional photographers would have a formula worked out for a buyout. I don't really understand why you think it is so nebulous or astounding. There are photographers out there with far far higher buyout fees than mine.

If you plan on making a living from commercial work, I assume you must be presenting some sort of payment schedule to your clients right? If not what sort of contract are they signing with you?

Ah, I :bigeyes: . I was working for a studio, and I don't think I remembered the sales of picture so hot? Hmm..I am not sure, but I still don't quite get the gist of lumping the whole sum as charging your client $25K. If thats the case, its just accumulative figure and not when someone ask you to shoot, and you just tell your client, oh.. thats gonna cost you $25k.

1 picture selling for $5k, hmm.. perhaps I'm new? I havent really heard of that too?

Confused. :dunno: :think:

 

[ckuang]

Timber 83, perhaps an easier way would be for me to ask you, if someone was to ask you for a quote for a commercial job, how would you go about it? I am guessing you give them a range of options rights?

That's why if you read my first post carefully, I said most clients will fall somewhere in between minimal rights and an all rights buyout program. Yes, you're right, most people would never do an all rights buyout. It makes no sense. But if someone did, then the residual income from that image must be accounted for.

The $25K is what i set for myself based on past experience. For yourself, you can set anything $1 or $1billion or whatever. Some photographers don't even offer clients the option of a rights buyout ever.

Imagine how much money Ansel Adams would have lost out on if he had signed over the rights of "Moonrise over Yosemite." The rights of that image run in the millions of dollars over the years. It doesn't really matter whether the image brings in $25K at once or over years. In fact I prefer it to be spread over years because it means a constant cash flow for a business which often makes more sense.

As far as one image making $5k. I don't know what your studios business model is like. With some business models, yes, you'll never see the likes of $5k for a picture but yet run a very profitable business. For myself, I'm a small operation. I need to leverage on big returns per image. It's hard for me to be profitable based on low cost quantity model. So it all depends on the business model you have adopted.

And remember, when a price is tacked on to the picture, it's not for the picture itself but for the lease of those rights, so if it helps, maybe to grasp the idea of rights and paying for those rights, you shift your mindset from photography being commodities towards something more akin to intellectual property which one would lease instead of trade in, if you know what i mean.

 

[marlboro]

Ok, ok, to save you the trouble of having to read between the lines , here a sceneario for you that cropped up this year

hey can you shoot this shot for us for in house use-$2000
a month later
hey we really like that shot, can we use if for a print ad in the newspaper- $2000
now the GM says we should use it on the web for the year- $1500
three months later
we were thinking of using it for our public brochure to sell our services in Singapore and Malaysia- $5000
another month later
can we renew all useage for one more year- 10500x2=21000

Perhaps yours is a very vastly different rights pricing structure.
Rights pricing usually falls, meaning you did the shoot for $2000, thereafter they decide to run ad with one of your pictures shot, they usually pay you less than $2000.

Rights managed photography may be the norm in the States (you hinted you used to shoot there?), but in real world here it's not.

In a perfect world, photography should be rights managed, and we should still be shooting on transparencies, just dropped off the films for processing after the shoot, get a beer and we can still bill clients for polaroids.

P/s : I'm talking about interiors shoots here, based on my earlier posts, it's about the only thing I know a little

 

[marlboro]

Since this thread is about architure & sports photography pricing, I would really like to hear other interior shooters experiences and views about rights managed interior pictures.

Is the formula working here? or just hot air, some idealistic gaggles on internet.

Let me start, I think design/architecture firms would be bewildered if I say they will need to top up my tank if the pictures I shot for their latest project are used in any other form of media except for their porffolio. For architecture firms, the pictures would also be sent to their head office in Europe, that's when they can invite me to talk pricing about how they improve my lifestyle:bsmilie:

 

[Kit]

Rights management does not apply to every client that comes along they way nor will everyone appreciate this concept here. You initial message where you mentioned 25k did not include this as well.

Architecture....... most developers pre-sell their developments, which means they probably sold the properties way before TOP is obtained. From what I see, that's where the money is but we, as photographers won't see much of it. Why? Because you need a completed building to photograph don't you? Here. you loose out to digital artisits with their "artist's impressions". You probably will have better luck with property agents re-selling properties but then again, do you think they would pay you recurring costs to use your photos again and again? No way.

Similarly, the only way architecture firms are going to use your photos for ads will be with their portfolios, most probably online. That photo might be there for a long time or it might just be used a couple of months, depending on how dynamic the firm is. Now its time you people be told how much Architects are being paid here. For a single residential with a contract sum of $1mil, you'd be very lucky if you can get $80k out of it. Now think, if I were to get $80k for 2 years worth of hardwork, what makes you think I would pay $25k for a photo??? No matter how I see it, I ain't see it as rosy as you do. I know, because I'm an architect and a photographer.

 

[eikin]

Hey Juliet, perhaps if you let us know what the final usage is for because it can vary widely. Based on some of my own figures

ie editorial shot for web only for 6 months-$400 per image + costs
perpetual rights for all markets and all mediums- $25 000 per image + costs

most images would fall somewhere in between, so i think most photographers would need more detailed job and output description to be able to answer your questions accurately.

Kuang

with this kind of pricing, what kind of architecture photography are you talking about? if you're talking about shooting for a multi-billionaire client who invited Frank Gehry to do up his little study extension in his one hectare backyard, or for an international developer who engaged Zaha Hadid to do some 6-star hotel resort development, $25k per image sure don't sound too much to ask for.

 

[Cheesecake]

25k!!!!!! what am i missing out man??? i mux charge higher the next time, like 100times more!

 

[ckuang]

Man! you guys are so fixated on the $25k amount that you're totally missing the point. It's not about how much a rights buyout is. It's about rights management, and most clients fall somewhere in between personal use and a full rights buyout, be it architecture, sports, weddings, product, food, whatever. Read my original post carefully.

If you guys don't wish to manage rights and want to hand off everything to the client. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with doing it. Personally, I prefer rights management because not doing so leads to a lot more problems. Different strokes for different folks. You guys do what is best for you. No one is forcing you to charge a specified amount. geez relax guys.

 

[Kit]

Man! you guys are so fixated on the $25k amount that you're totally missing the point. It's not about how much a rights buyout is. It's about rights management, and most clients fall somewhere in between personal use and a full rights buyout, be it architecture, sports, weddings, product, food, whatever. Read my original post carefully.

If you guys don't wish to manage rights and want to hand off everything to the client. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with doing it. Personally, I prefer rights management because not doing so leads to a lot more problems. Different strokes for different folks. You guys do what is best for you. No one is forcing you to charge a specified amount. geez relax guys.

You must be an extremely lucky dude to be always landed with clients whom are ever ready to talk about rights management.

 

[Kit]

And in the end, the thread starter hasn't got his questions answered.:sticktong

Well, to answer the TS's question if its not too late.... you can go ahead and charge whatever you like even if its $25k. Just be prepared to be shown the way to the door.

 

[Kit]

Man! you guys are so fixated on the $25k amount that you're totally missing the point. It's not about how much a rights buyout is. It's about rights management, and most clients fall somewhere in between personal use and a full rights buyout, be it architecture, sports, weddings, product, food, whatever. Read my original post carefully.

Of course, it not about how much to charge, though $25k is a little shocking. Its about the recurring costs of using the same photo over and over again. Clients don't like that. They would usually prefer a one off arrangement and in that nature; if you factor in rights management costs into a one off quote, its not going to look good at the job interview.

 

[eikin]

Man! you guys are so fixated on the $25k amount that you're totally missing the point. It's not about how much a rights buyout is. It's about rights management, and most clients fall somewhere in between personal use and a full rights buyout, be it architecture, sports, weddings, product, food, whatever. Read my original post carefully.

If you guys don't wish to manage rights and want to hand off everything to the client. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with doing it. Personally, I prefer rights management because not doing so leads to a lot more problems. Different strokes for different folks. You guys do what is best for you. No one is forcing you to charge a specified amount. geez relax guys.

yes your original post is pretty misleading.

''perpetual rights for all markets and all mediums- $25 000 per image + costs''

depends on who your client is. there's space to bargain when coming to big projects for big firms with reputation. but don't expect a small firm to pay that amount, even for perpetual rights.