Cost for author's photo?

[Cookie]

What I meant was, taking pictures should be a passion and art, not just "OMG I CAN MAKE MONEY WITH THIS THING". Just like everyone thinks "Hey, I could write a book about that". No. You couldn't. You're a moron with a computer. It makes me think of that Family Guy clip of writing in Starbucks. "It doesn't count unless someone sees you doing it." "Hey, I'm gonna write that down!" "Great, can I watch?"

People lose sight of the real meaning and beauty of something when they start looking at money and prices. "OMG how much is this". "OMG how much can I charge people for this".

It's one reason I get so infurated by people in the doll community who make clothing. Yes, making clothes takes effort. The fabric, the machine, and the hand sewing and coming up with ideas is all so time consuming and such. But if you love it and want it to get out there, why the hell are you charging $200 a freaking outfit? You are not CoCo Chanel or Ralph Lauren. Stop trying to be that way. But there are morons out there who will slap that money down and then wonder why the clothes are falling apart six months later.

Because you didn't research. You didn't look at what you were buying, and you didn't see how crappy it was. You saw, "Ooh, $200. It MUST be good!"

Unfortunately, that is how the art community works. People will only think it is good if it is outrageously priced.

I for one, hate doing commissions. I draw (or paint) because it is something I enjoy doing, and doing it for money kinda takes the joy out of it. Of course, I could also hate commissions because people ask me to draw stupid things for them. I don't want to draw your stupid dog or cat. I don't even want to draw my cats.

I'm not saying everyone should do it for free, or that I won't take a commission if it comes my way, I just hate putting a value on my work.

Note: I don't think your pet is stupid. I think the portrait of your pet is stupid.

[charlotte49ers]

It's insulting to suggest artists are somehow morally bankrupt for charging for their work and time, though I'm sure that wasn't your intention.

First off, I love the cartoon (though it did take me a moment to get it, I'm exhausted from working a full shift yesterday, coming in last night from 11:30pm to 1:30am, and coming in on time this morning).

What I meant was, taking pictures should be a passion and art, not just "OMG I CAN MAKE MONEY WITH THIS THING". Just like everyone thinks "Hey, I could write a book about that". No. You couldn't. You're a moron with a computer. It makes me think of that Family Guy clip of writing in Starbucks. "It doesn't count unless someone sees you doing it." "Hey, I'm gonna write that down!" "Great, can I watch?"

People lose sight of the real meaning and beauty of something when they start looking at money and prices. "OMG how much is this". "OMG how much can I charge people for this".

It's one reason I get so infurated by people in the doll community who make clothing. Yes, making clothes takes effort. The fabric, the machine, and the hand sewing and coming up with ideas is all so time consuming and such. But if you love it and want it to get out there, why the hell are you charging $200 a freaking outfit? You are not CoCo Chanel or Ralph Lauren. Stop trying to be that way. But there are morons out there who will slap that money down and then wonder why the clothes are falling apart six months later.

Because you didn't research. You didn't look at what you were buying, and you didn't see how crappy it was. You saw, "Ooh, $200. It MUST be good!"

Now that I agree with, and makes sense. And on the flip side, when people do the, "Oooohh!! Session + disk for $100!! Must.buy." Nevermind the pictures are TERRIBLE!!! That's about as stupid! :D Quality work is worth the price, but price does not always = quality on both sides of the coin.

And Cookie, I know with my digital photo release, I say they can use the photo on their own personal websites and stuff. That doesn't bother me, but if it was getting printed onto posters, campaigns, stuff like that, I would view it as commercial. But like you said, someone might see it as a promo, so it's always good to ask!

[Nicole R]

JES,

The others are right that it varies a lot by region, by style, by photographer, etc. But I'll see what I can do to give you a ballpark idea - I work in PR for my day job and we do a lot of photo shoots for clients.

Most photographers will charge by the hour for any given photo session, and most of them already factor in a basic rights package as part of that hourly rate. (They assume you're going to want the rights to your own photos) That depends a little bit on whether you only want one or an entire portfolio. I don't think our agency has ever paid a separate licensing fee because it's all factored in ahead of time. But you'll definitely want to check into that with whatever photographer you choose.

The photographer we normally use charges about $500 for a half-day session (approx. 4 hours). You probably wouldn't need that long of a session for an author headshot. This includes cost for travel to whatever site we choose (within reason) and usually produces a nice assortment of fun shots - way beyond the typical boring old headshot.

Keep in mind this is for the Midwestern U.S. Prices would likely be much higher in a larger city. Also, our photographer is a freelancer with his own studio - this gives him greater price flexibility than others working for some type of agency.

Another approach might be to set your budget and then ask the photographer for a quote on what they can do for that price. In my experience, photographers are usually very open to working that way.

Hope this helps!

[polymath]

Photographers enjoy the same intellectual property rights and limitations as writers, especially including, as pertains to the thread topic, work-for-hire works. Generally, all reproduction rights belong to the party who hires the work. However, savvy artists--photographers--reserve rights. Generally, again, photographer-reserved rights follow Fair Use doctrine parameters.

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

Example: An author hires a photographer to take a portrait. The portrait is for promotional purposes. It's a once and done snapshot or two or it's a major production including studio backdrops, makeup artist, prop costumery, other props, etc.

The photographer delivers the portrait snapshot to the subject who hired the photographer--presumably a digital photo delivered on a CD, flash drive, a password accessible online gallery, or sent via e-mail attachment, etc. Without expressly stated reserved rights, the portrait and all reproduction rights belong in their entirety to the party who hired the photographer. Period.

The fine print of a work-for-hire contract might reserve to the photographer a right to use the photograph in any way he or she deems. Period. And anywhere in between none and all publication rights, including a clause prohibiting the party who hired the photographer from using the photo for commercial purposes, like artwork for a book jacket, promotional posters, Web site copy, etc. In general, again, photographers' work-for-hire contracts vary widely, from an outright rights grab to an abundantly cautious preservation of commercial rights to no rights interests whatsoever.

By and large, a photographer wants to preserve his or her intellectual property rights into perpetuity for future contigencies; a party hiring a photographer wants to use a photograph he or she paid for as he or she sees fit without any risk the photographer would use the photograph for his or her own purposes. They come to a meeting of the minds somewhere in between through negotiating an express contract detailing whose rights apply in what circumstances.

Then there's parallel and oftentimes equivalent model release forms which grant certain reproduction rights to a photographer.

Caveat emptor. Read the contract(s).

How much should an author portrait cost? Depends on the name recognition of the photographer and the resources invested in the process and which rights apply to who. Me, I'd do it for nada, reserve no rights, and the results would be comparable to any by a studio photographer charging thousands of dollars and reserving significant copyrights. I am an artist with some small name recognition and formal training; however, I'm not fully invested in the photography business. It's a sideline pastime I enjoy. Getting into the business fully would take away too much of the satisfaction of it to suit my sentiments.

[Quill]

Wow, a commercial photographer whom you pay to take picture of you requires you to license that picture, too?

Forget that. Hire a friend with a decent camera, or a photography student.

I guess I'm not understanding you. People who are running a business charge for the use of their art by others, just as you would charge people to read a book you've written.

I expect to hire the service (photography) and purchase the product (custom photos). I do not expect to license them in addition, or for the photographer to retain rights. I expect the photos to be mine to do with as I wish after I purchase them. That's what I would be in the market for. If it was not available from pro photographers, I'd find another solution.

Or were you one of those arguing the piracy thing a few months back?

No. I don't see what this has to do with piracy. I do not advocate piracy. I advocate purchase and subsequent ownership.

If so, there's no point in discussing this with you, as you and I don't share the same opinion on copyright law.

Possibly not. I would not wish to purchase any custom photo that would be copywrited by another party after I did so. I'd go another route. That's my point.

[sierramcconnell]

I think the problem with photography and rights is this: Photography = Art, and most people think that a Portrait does not fall under that rule.

Because that's ME. I own me. You can't own me. I own me.

Yes. You own you. But you do not own the backdrop. The setting. The staging. The lighting. The contrast. The focus. The grain. The way the camera was held. The tripod, the flash, the actual camera. Those nifty white circly things that focus light away or toward a person. Those boxes there. That stool you sit on that's seen better days.

Huh. Looks like there's a lot in this picture, seen and unseen, THAT YOU DO NOT OWN, that you ARE PAYING TO USE.

That's where copyright comes into. You are paying not only for the vision of the artist behind the camera, but for all those nifty little things that they require to make that vision come into being.

It's like reverse modeling. However, it's also very complicated. You can work your contract out that you do not put their name in the book, but they are given a flat amount. Or you could give them a percentage. Or you could put their name in the book with a smaller percentage.

What happens when the book takes off and more people see Mr. Photographer's wonderful image, and see 'Photo by Mr. Photographer'? Sure, they were paid less, but they got advertising as well for their website!

Ah, everyone is looking for their own way to get out there and be seen. Even in the face of someone else. O_O

[Quill]

So, what does it cost these days to license an image of oneself, after one pays for it? Does the photographer actually own it? Is it an annual fee? In perpetuity? Can the photographer also market the image one has commissioned to be made, say, if one becomes famous? Might one's image show up, for example, without one's express permission, in a gallery or in a book of the photographer's work?

[polymath]

Here's a discussion of photographers' model releases, including a sample basic model release form.

http://www.nyip.com/ezine/techtips/model-release.html

I've been required to sign model releases for yearbook pictures, and my parents gave express permission when I wasn't of legal age. Not much market potential in them, though I've seen collections of entertaining yearbook pictures probably orginating from same. Cruise pictures and that kind of memento and memorialization photography businesses, their model release language is buried in the fine print of cruise companys' use and enjoyment agreements, tacitly and implicity. If you're on their property, the expectation of privacy in public spaces is compromised.

When I ran a small cruise line memento photography business, the passenger tickets included a fine print release agreement clause to allow the parent company use of passenger photos taken of them on company property. Nothing ever went anywhere, (except the pictures of the nude life model who spontaneously auditioned from an expectation of some kind of return for her performance) though if something were of interest to the company, they were legally on solid ground to do as they wanted. They had to decide quick though. I deleted the files between cruises, as many as eight a day. Day trips, hour, hour and a half, three hour tours. Just sit right back and I'll tell you a tale . . .

Quill, I think the article linked above will answer most of your questions. Me, I take all my own pictures so there's no wiggle room whatsoever. When someone takes my picture for their purposes, c'est la vie. I just try not to be too interesting or entertaining in public places.

Licensing costs are kind of a matter of commercial potential. If there's none or little, there shouldn't be much cost. If there is a commercial potential, whatever the market will bear. There's an old saying based on a real world practice, become trite, cliché, and an enduring idiom. A picture is worth a thousand words. Its origins are clouded in mystery. It's a metaphor with varying contexts. However, it originated in the early days of printed periodicals. An engraved illustration paid the engraver the equivalent of the page real estate it occupied. A newspaper folio page contained one thousand words of real estate. As it was a work for hire, all rights were conveyed to the purchaser of the illustration. Cruikshank and Hogarth, for example, reserved their rights to ownership and only licensed specific publication privileges.

[charlotte49ers]

Wow, a commercial photographer whom you pay to take picture of you requires you to license that picture, too?

Forget that. Hire a friend with a decent camera, or a photography student.

I guess I'm not understanding you. People who are running a business charge for the use of their art by others, just as you would charge people to read a book you've written.

I expect to hire the service (photography) and purchase the product (custom photos). I do not expect to license them in addition, or for the photographer to retain rights. I expect the photos to be mine to do with as I wish after I purchase them. That's what I would be in the market for. If it was not available from pro photographers, I'd find another solution.

You won't find that, at least not from most legitimate photographers because, like was mentioned, you (as the subject) are such a small part of what goes into that photo. It's not just a click, it's over thing. It's art (and I view portraits as such), so you do not "own" it. Not to mention the years of knowledge and study that go into making that art. To be frank, the subject maybe accounts for 5% of what goes into a portrait.

Or were you one of those arguing the piracy thing a few months back?

No. I don't see what this has to do with piracy. I do not advocate piracy. I advocate purchase and subsequent ownership.

It's very relevant if you saw the viewpoints in that thread, which is why I mentioned it. It had everything to do with artistic creation and copyrights.

If so, there's no point in discussing this with you, as you and I don't share the same opinion on copyright law.

Possibly not. I would not wish to purchase any custom photo that would be copywrited by another party after I did so. I'd go another route. That's my point.

And I've explained why photography isn't as cut and dry as this, and the consumer's feeling of a right to something someone else has created is one of the reasons so many great photographers are getting out of the industry. Digital photography has made everyone and their mother feel like they are a photographer, and the perception that because the mode of creation has changed, photos are somehow not creating art anymore. It's frustrating to say the least.

There were a lot of good points made by the others.

And sorry it's taken so long to respond. A friend of mine lost her home in the tornadoes day before yesterday and I was helping her salvage her stuff. It's so awful what's happened around here. :/

[Quill]

Sorry your friend lost her home.

I understand what you are saying, but I guess I just have reiterate that I would never pay to have a image of myself made that I didn't own outright afterward. Nor would pay extra for license to use it after paying for the session. I wouldn't care how good it was or what went into it.

[charlotte49ers]

And that's perfectly fine. You just wouldn't be the target market of most custom photographers, which is fine, too. Not everyone is! Just be sure to find that information out before you hire someone. To say I would be majorly annoyed if a client started wanting full rights after the fact would be an understatement, though that's why I have my contract signed before the session! :D

[CharleeVale]

Wow. This has gotten very...Passionate. Maybe I can help. I am a professional photographer....

I can tell this is a touchy subject, so I'll tread lightly.

What I personally do (and I think someone else mentioned it), depending on the style of shoot, the purpose, the length, travel time etc. I quote the client an hourly price. My shoots are generally flexible, so this works well.

Now, if I'm shooting engagement photos, wedding photos, senior photos, anything of a personal nature, I generally will not charge a licensing fee, since I know that those photos are pretty much staying within the friends and family of those people.

Doing commercial work is a different story. Photography isn't like the publishing world. We don't get royalties in perpetuity for our work. So, if we don't charge a licensing or printing fee at the beginning of the process, we lose a lot of money. A LOT. It's pretty much like publishing your book and only getting the advance, and never getting paid again.

I know that not everyone agrees with this.

There have been some good points made here. Yes the picture is small, and yes photography is expensive.

But trust me, people can tell when you've taken your time to do something right. You can tell a high quality photo/photographer EVEN from a 2x3 photo. Honestly, a shoot for an author photo will be short. It's not going to take a lot of time for someone who knows what they're doing. If it doesn't take a lot of time, the initial sitting fee won't be a lot. But don't flip out over editing and licensing fees. We're trying to make a living too.

Hope this helps, or at least gives a little perspective.

CV

[Sommer Leigh]

I've been meaning to chime in, but wasn't sure exactly how at first. While I'm not a photographer, I do work with copyright issues in my grown up job. Some of the issues we face with licensing are the exact same ones you're talking about with photography. I think it is important to remember that while photography, like all arts, can be a hobby, it is also a business. Our society has a hard time putting value on the arts for this very reason.

I'm not going to repeat the value of a photographer's work/time/expertise/training. That's already been done very well above. What I do want to emphasise is that there are many, many, many different forms of copyright licensing. Please read all contracts very carefully and ask questions. If you have a very specific use or see yourself using a photo in a specific way in the future, talk to your photographer ahead of time before signing the contract. Most contracts are pretty general and most photographers are willing to talk about your particular situation. Make sure everything you get is signed in writing. Don't be vague, get everything in writing and make sure you understand how you are allowed to use your pictures up front.

One last note - it might sound totally crazy that someone else owns the rights to a picture of you and that you should have total ownership but trust me, you want a good long term relationship with your photographer. You want to pay for that relationship too. Because unless you are savvy with digital photographs, that you understand resolution, sizing, the differences between digital color and print color, and all the other complications with technology, you want to be able to go back to your photographer down the road. You want someone who knows what they are doing and has archived your photoshoot. And for this kind of piece of mind you want to pay for it. Most photographers I've ever worked with are pretty nice about answering questions about their work. So two years down the road when a publication wants to print an interview with you and asks for a photograph at a certain resolution, your photographer can tell you that yes the digital file you received from them is what the publication is asking for, or no it is not, this is what you need instead.

It is surprising how often, in my grown up job, we have to request a speaker's professional photo for the event they are doing at our facility only to receive a photo that is not a good size or is not a good resolution. Maybe it looks fine on the webpage but on the brochure shows up all pixelated because when we ask for a photo that is 300 dpi they go into their photo program and change the resolution from 72 to 300 without knowing what they are doing and the photo ends up looking terrible.

Anyway, that's all. Good luck !

[Nigel Haberdash]

I don't understand why you need a professional photo? A friend with a digital camera with a black and white setting should be able to pull this off for you. Just drive out of town wearing a black sweater, sit on the first square hay bale you find, look mysterious, click and you're done. Maybe I'm just gorgeous so I don't have to worry about it?

[Sommer Leigh]

I don't understand why you need a professional photo? A friend with a digital camera with a black and white setting should be able to pull this off for you. Just drive out of town wearing a black sweater, sit on the first square hay bale you find, look mysterious, click and you're done. Maybe I'm just gorgeous so I don't have to worry about it?

Isn't this sort of like the same argument people like to make about writing novels? Like, "hey I'm going to spend the next month writing, hire an agent, and by christmas have a publishing contract. I'll quit my job once the contract is signed. I don't see what the big deal is, it's just a book, how hard can it be? I'll have it done in a few weeks then I'll start working on the sequel."

Nothing is every as easy as talented people make it seem.