Forum Moderators: not2easy
Look around at other photographers' sites and get a feel for what they charge. Several hundred sound to me like a minimum starting price, (depending on the size and amount of photos) but if it's a "reasonably well known musician" you might want to charge much more than that. (I really have no idea. How "well known" is this musician? is he or she a local celebrity, or nationally well known? How many copies of this album will be sold?)
Also, definitely discuss limits on the photo. Specify what the photo can be used for, what it can't be used for. Don't sell all rights—retain the copyright to the photo.
Don't let the people you are negotiating with try to talk you down in price, by saying that they will give you "credit" and that it is "good promotion" for you. That's the oldest trick in the book. Sure, there might be times when lowballing a price, just so you get a tasty project for your portfolio is a good idea, but it grates on me (and many artists) to constantly be told that "We can't pay you much, but we'll promote your work! It'll be good exposure for you!" That is such an old line, and it's often a LIE. No "promotion" happens, it's just a way to be skin-flinty with artists.
Some people are cheapskates who just don't want to pay artists, and feel like artists should be "honored" to give their work away for free. Be aware of this, but be also aware that perhaps sometimes it's good to take what you can get and have something for your portfolio. (But do it because you decide you want to do it, not because you are pressured into it by a cheapskate.)
EDIT: I just checked with some of the stock photo service bureaus like Corbis and their photos seem to go for around US$500 each.
I am somewhat clueless and not terribly savvy, so it wouldn't suprise me if there's something I'm missing here. What could the "Big Shot" company claim that would convince anyone that they—not the photographer—owned rights to the photo, if, for instance, they have no negative while the photographer did?
Start with the BMI site.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I'm just passing along what I've learned over the years from running a site where we host thousands of photos, none of which belong to me.
I can see how just owning a negative would not be proof of ownership. After all, someone could have stolen the negatives, could have been given them without having rights transferred, or whatever. It would indeed be pretty scary to know that if someone stole your negatives, that would be enough to "prove" that they owned rights to them.
But how could somebody prove that they owned rights to photos, when they didn't have negatives, didn't have any proof (like signed contracts) at all?
And I'm thinking of another example, like original artwork. Let's say someone "claims" that they have rights to publish an artist's drawing, but they have no original, no large digital scan, nothing, while the copyright owner (and artist) has an intact sketchbook which includes the artwork in dispute, (along with a whole lot of work in a similar style). And, the artwork is in the drawing style of the artist (in other words, the artist can easily reproduce a similar work, thus showing that they are most likely the originator of the work). While the other person who is "claiming" to have rights can do nothing of that—they just say that they have rights. I mean, who would be so bold as to try to still try to steal someone's work in that context?
And getting back to tbear, his (her?) photo in question has tbear in the pictures, so it would be a little bit of a stretch to say that tbear didn't have something with the creation of the photos.
But, now you've got me paranoid, and I'm going to have to rush off and register a lot of my work . . . ;)
Let's say I go out to South Beach and someone takes a photo in which I appear. Does that mean I own the photograph or even have anything to do with it other than being in it?
In tbear's situation, if he/she is in the photo who shot the photo? Was it taken with tbear's camera?
A model release would not be necessarily needed for a shot of you just milling about on the street, but I believe that legally, it's safer to always get model releases for posed photos, no matter where they are taken. Model releases are not always needed so much for news articles and so forth, but for a commercial project? I have always been led to believe that "better be safe than sorry" and get a model release.
It gets even more far-fetched when the (real) photographer is in the (posed) photo and owns the negatives. I mean, seriously, how could some other entity (let's say, a big company) still claim that they magically owned rights to a photo when they don't have any model releases, don't own any physical evidence of the work?
(Needless to say, I am not a lawyer so I could be wrong about all of this.)
You should definately get a model release. If you know the guys that should be fairly easy. You can find generic model releases on a popular stock photo site. (I'll sticky you the URL)
Then be sure to have a copyright release that you are comfortable with. If they provide one for you it will likely prevent you from using the photo on your own to resell or promote yourself (To prevent overuse of the image) and it may give them rights to sell the image as well.
You can search for copyright release forms on the web as well. Make sure that you retain full copyright over the image and that they are given limited rights that will allow them to use the image for the purposes that they intend.
As far as pricing goes, for a CD cover you might be able to ask for a price per use such as $0.10 per CD sold. (more or less, but you get the idea) From experience I can tell you that 75% of the time your name, website or whatever will not be included on the photo even if it is promised. They often send the image off to a printer and the printer never knows that they promised your name on the image.
If you want to really have the chance to make some money on the deal, give them the photo and limited rights for no charge and ask for full access to photograph their events and earn your money by selling those images to fans. (just an idea)
What you want to avoid is getting paid for the CD covers, and then suddenly find that your photo is a big hit on thousands of $20 tee shirts and you get nothing for that additional use.
but I feel that since they will earn money from the cd, they should pay me something.
There is certainly nothing wrong with that attitude, but there are some other ways to think about it that you might want to consider.
Overcharge and they might not use your photo, undercharge, and they might not respect you.
On the other hand, the prestige of shooting a cover photo for a CD can be worth a lot more than whatever they will pay you.
I would "give" them the limited rights to use the picture for the CD, in exchange for access to the events by other performers on that label.
It all depends on what you want.
At the peak of his bodybuilding career, Arnold Schwarzenegger would go out of his way to do photo shoots for free as long as he was on the cover of the magazine. Others would charge and haggle over their fee. Arnold knew that having his face (or body) on the cover was worth way more than whatever money they would have paid him.
Like I said, it is just another option to consider. But sometimes it is best to go for the money.
Let's say I go out to South Beach and someone takes a photo in which I appear. Does that mean I own the photograph or even have anything to do with it other than being in it?
Out in public like that, you generally don't own squat if they take your picture, and you have very little recourse if they make money off it. (at least in the US)
You need to set up some sort of situation where it is no longer considered a public situation.
One trick a friend of mine tried at a nude beach was to put up a sign "Take my picture nude $100". The annoying shutterbug that caused this action showed up and took her picture. She took him to court and won an award, but was then fined for running a business without a license.
This is an important point for you to think about. If you sell the company the use of the photo make sure that the license agreement lists detailed uses that company X can use the photo for. That way they will not benefit from additional uses that you have not been compensated for.
