|
Forums >
General Industry >
The picture selling percentages.
Let's say you have a camera, a model and a website. Great, now what? I've seen a couple photographers selling enlargments. I'm not looking for a single solid answer, as I know there isn't one. The question I need a round about answer to is: Aproximately what percentage of the profits do you give the models? Does it vary depending on the model? Content (i.e. nudity vs. non)?. Is it more common or wise to pay the model a flat fee up front and keep them out of the per item sold deal? I'm just wondering what "fair" would be in the minds of models and photographers. I guess that's more than one question. I'm bound to get more than one answer so I spose it's ok  May 26 05 02:05 am Link I'm used to selling licences on a sliding scale based on usage rather than art prints which is what I believe you are referring to. So for commercial work prints are just an expenses item - if they appear at all - and don't attract an additional percentage for the model or other members of the team. Having said that, art prints or cards is area I have been considering recently and my take is that a limited licence for print sales would be a fair swap for me to waive my normal test/portfolio rate. So the model gets a shoot and a limited number of prints in return for me being able to sell those prints in order to recoup the costs. A similar deal would apply for stock use but perhaps with a threshold, above which there might be a split on profits - but it would be a share based on the number of people in the team that usually a minimum of me, H&MUA and model - and only after expenses (including agency cut) had been taken out. So in other words, not much. Which is why I maintain that models should consider photographer's clients not photographers themselves as their primary source of income. May 26 05 03:18 am Link Thanks, that gets me closer. Let me give a more specific example or two to allow for a more specific answer. Scenario one : Both myself and the model have limited experience. We do fine art nudes which I sell on a website as 8x10s to poster size. $ up front, or what percentage of per item profits to give to her? Sounds like $ up front would be easier in the long run but tougher on the wallet for start up. Scenario two : Model has quite a bit of experience, maybe her own website and a bit of a following. I approach her to sell bikini and glamour prints to her "fans". Apply same questions. Again, an approximation of per item profits will do. Also do I let her share in the copyright so that she may sell those same images on HER site? I agree about the mindset for models to view the clients as the source of $. In both of these cases I AM the client concidering I am the one selling the images to MY clients. Tell me if I am looking at that wrong. May 26 05 11:31 am Link I shoot as damn much TFP art nudes as I can get. I show in galleries, sell prints. I contract 30% to the the model AFTER expenses, the release also states she waives right to know/approve of the buyer, which I heard from a photog was a good idea as he had to get one of his models to approve every sale as he hadn't put that stipulation in the release. If I pay the model upfront, no percentage, however out of "the kindness of my heart" I have given 10% here and there to certain of my more fav models May 26 05 12:30 pm Link Thanks Scott, exactly what I was looking for. You pretty much put scenario #1 to bed for me. May 26 05 10:13 pm Link Posted by Lee Lossing: Also do I let her share in the copyright so that she may sell those same images on HER site? No, never share copyright. Issue a limited licence so that she may sell the prints if you like or draw up a contract that says she gets a share of your sales - whatever, but copyright should stay with you and only you as the photographer. If you are unsure of the difference between sharing copyright and issuing a licence your reading list suddenly got a bit longer ;-) May 27 05 05:35 pm Link If I'm doing a rev-share shoot with a model, it's 60-40 on all sales by either party, with the model getting 60%. Also, if I do a rev-share shoot, it's joint copyright between myself and the model. Now if it's a paid shoot I keep the copyright and 100% of any revenue. The model will get a few photos for publicity and such, but 99% of the photos will be exclusively mine to distribute as I want. May 30 05 12:12 am Link I've talked to a lot of photographers about me selling prints to fans and what not. I would get more then 50% of the sales. May 30 05 12:17 am Link Posted by piers: Posted by Lee Lossing: Also do I let her share in the copyright so that she may sell those same images on HER site? No, never share copyright. Issue a limited licence so that she may sell the prints if you like or draw up a contract that says she gets a share of your sales - whatever, but copyright should stay with you and only you as the photographer. If you are unsure of the difference between sharing copyright and issuing a licence your reading list suddenly got a bit longer ;-) does anyone have a link to sample forms for releases and issuing a license? just starting out and realized my model release doesn't stipulate the whole sale/profit subject. thanks guys! May 30 05 12:52 am Link what i do is sell my own pictures. my photographers dont really have the rights to sell them, but its not like official. since im in the whole import industry, and pretty much all of this takes place at car shows and model expos, the photographers really not involved. and no, i dont pay any of my photographers. they either pay me, or its a tfp. tfp's eliminate me having to go to printers and do all that, so thats what i usually prefer. the reason why photographers are so generous in these cases are because they need to expand their portfolio as well. or just a friend doing me a favor  ..unless my photographers are like secretly selling my pictures? hahaMay 30 05 01:05 am Link Posted by vanscottie: On what planet does your friend live? The model has no rights regarding the image unless they are GIVEN to the model in the release. The photographer holds the copyright. May 30 05 01:47 am Link Posted by Tina Lee: I hope the "photographers" you work with have some idea you are selling their work. May 30 05 01:54 am Link Sweet, i'm getting answers to questions I didn't even know I had. Just when I thought I was getting it all figured out, somebody else has to chime in and let me know how little I know....lol. As I expected, there is more than one answer here. From what I can gather I suspect it all depends on the individual photographer and more specifically, the individual deal with each model. If I had to answer my own question using the info here and common sense, I would say it depends on what each person brings to the table. To just simply say that you should never pay a model up front, and always share in profits say... 50/50 would limit you to what you can do. When Tyra Banks calls me tommorrow and says she would have worked with me if I offered her $200 up front, i'd kick myself in the head for having my own rules set in concrete. Conversely, a photographer a little higher on the food chain than myself might not be willing to offer as sweet a deal as perhaps I should to a model with little or no experience. Seeing how only two photographers have had the nads to give me a specific amount, I take it most photographers have a sliding scale as well. Perhaps a sliding scale that only moves to my side as my experience increases might be the way to go. Hmmm, the copyright thing opens up a can of worms huh? Again, the smart thing to do from my perspective would be to evaluate what each party gets from the deal. I'd be willing to give Tyra at least shared copyrights knowing the return I get from the shoot in the future will far exceed what I would lose up front. I've never dealt with or even seen a limited license. Still I can already see the difference between it and sharing a copyright. Samples of any of these forms would be incredibly helpfull though. May 30 05 02:03 pm Link Posted by Lee Lossing: Mostly witht he models I use in my images, those images are used as stock images and the models are paid the going rates depending on the usage of the image. With the images they range from advertising to editorial to brochure to billboards. SO they will be paid depending on the usgae of that work...sometimes it's months or even years before the image is used or it could be used right away. May 30 05 02:26 pm Link Posted by XtremeArtists ®: Sorry, but it's actually the EXACT OPPOSITE. The release entails the models giving up the rights she already has (which do not include copyrights, but do include privacy and publicity rights). We've been over this way too may times. May 30 05 03:37 pm Link Posted by XtremeArtists ®: Posted by Tina Lee: I hope the "photographers" you work with have some idea you are selling their work. they have every idea. upon hire, i tell them that the prints are for MY selling purposes at carshows and expos, etc. you just looooove arguing with every one of my posts dont you? its cute. keep it up. May 30 05 03:40 pm Link Posted by theda: Posted by XtremeArtists ®: Sorry, but it's actually the EXACT OPPOSITE. The release entails the models giving up the rights she already has (which do not include copyrights, but do include privacy Well Theda. I agree and disagree with this, You are right the photographer has no right to sell the image unless the Model signs a release for her image to be sold by said Photographer. But the Model has no right to sell the images as they are copyrighted to the photographer who took them. The model cannot sell the images without some form of release from the Photographer granting such rights. May 30 05 03:49 pm Link I am now selling signed limited edition prints of images created with models and I deal with selling the prints exactly the same I deal with selling images via my stock agencies. The model appearing in the image gets 20 % of the total sale. I do monthly statements (when a model is crating enough sales). The only sales I deal with differently is when images are licensed for national or international advertising, those are on a case by case basis and the percentage can be from as low as 10% to as high as 49% of the fees, depending on expenses involved in the production , agency splits and usage. I NEVER pay models up front, they are taking the same risks as I am and I want everyone not only to make money and get paid for the work they do, but a larger amount of sales from working hard on an images is a great motivational factor for the models.... May 30 05 03:51 pm Link I never said the model had the right to sell the images without the photographer's express permission. Niether party has the right to do much without the other party's consent. It's beautiful thing. May 30 05 03:52 pm Link Posted by theda: OKAY My bad I read into the Exact Opposite too much, Yes I agree it's a good deal that each party has to work with the other, It's good to see people considering this upfront and not after the fact. Trying to establish who gets what after the work is done is a recipe for disaster! May 30 05 03:54 pm Link Posted by RFAphoto: Posted by theda: Posted by XtremeArtists ®: Sorry, but it's actually the EXACT OPPOSITE. The release entails the models giving up the rights she already has (which do not include copyrights, but do include privacy Well Theda. I agree and disagree with this, You are right the photographer has no right to sell the image unless the Model signs a release for her image to be sold by said Photographer. But the Model has no right to sell the images as they are copyrighted to the photographer who took them. The model cannot sell the images without some form of release from the Photographer granting such rights. well half of my photographers ARE also friends, however new photographers i work with and agree to such conditions do so because they desire to have me in their portfolio. once that choice is made, i am the one who sells images. unless, theyre selling them without me knowing? i have not run into one fan whos bought images from my photographers though. and i do work in the eye of the public. i wouldnt mind if they sold my images, as long as it wasnt degrading me in some sort of way? i am not dependent in any way of the money i make from selling pictures. May 30 05 03:54 pm Link Well I was applying my perspective to things, I wouldn't mind shooting a few pics of you for my portfolio if distance wasn't such a big issue. I wouldn't be willing to waive any and all of my rights to sell the pictures myself for TFP or if I paid you as a model. But that's how I do business, Others will vary. Since My buisiness is still growing and I need additional exposure I'd be willing to offer shared rights, but those percentages would be discussed before the shoot and outlined in a model release, and both you and I would get a signed copy so there is never any dispute over what has been agreed upon. Even if you are shooting with friends right now, I'd STRONGLY suggest you get a release for those images just for protection and to outline the agreement in concrete terms. May 30 05 04:05 pm Link I don't mean to be a smart ass, but it seems like something that needs to be gone over again. A model release is only legally required for commercial use, like ads, CD covers, brochures, etc.. A model release is not required for editorial photography such as newspapers, magazines, and textbooks. from: http://www.indexstock.com/content/forar … guides.asp "The "Fair Use Doctrine," applies to a person or property used in a non-advertising or non- promotional way. No release is needed if the photograph is part of the article or title it relates to, and is considered factual. Fair use covers many newspapers, magazines, and textbook uses. It also applies to some annual reports." A photographer can market an editorial image because he holds the copyright. I will agree with anyone who says it's always a good idea to get a signed release. Posted by theda: Posted by XtremeArtists ®: Sorry, but it's actually the EXACT OPPOSITE. The release entails the models giving up the rights she already has (which do not include copyrights, but do include privacy and publicity righs). We've been over this way too may times. May 30 05 04:22 pm Link Okay. And what does this have to do with anything else discussed in this thread? Posted by XtremeArtists ®: May 30 05 05:47 pm Link Well usage for art is classified the same as editorial usage, and there is no requirement for a release, with a few exceptions (i.e. book covers). So what I wrote is not the "exact opposite" of how it works for someone showing in a gallery as was the artist I replied to. Herb Posted by theda: Posted by XtremeArtists ®: May 30 05 06:12 pm Link Except that a model release gives the model no rights at all. It only takes away rights. That's it's only function. The photographer has limited non-commercial usages without the release, but it's a copyright waiver that would entitle the model to usage rights. In other words, the exact opposite of what you claimed a model release did. Last I heard, selling prints was considered a commercial endevour. May 30 05 06:37 pm Link You're right. I didn't express myself clearly at all. I was referring to the usage he specified and not all uses. It's not always clear cut, so there really is no "exact opposite" possible. For example, if the gallery showing is sponsored or underwritten by a major corporation, a model release is required since there may be an association between the model and the corporation. To bring it closer to the original poster's question: Personally, I always use a release because I want to have as many options for usage as possible. In it I specify the percentage a model will be paid from the sale of each print. The percentage is based on the profits from each print, and the percentage increases as the total sales increase. Posted by XtremeArtists ®: Posted by vanscottie: On what planet does your friend live? The model has no rights regarding the image unless they are GIVEN to the model in the release. The photographer holds the copyright. May 30 05 06:52 pm Link There really is no "fine art" exemption to privacy laws as far as I know. Newsworthy events (and those events can be defined quite broadly) are the only exemption I've ever heard of. So it doesn't matter who is underrighting the art show. It's still a commercial endevour. May 30 05 10:15 pm Link Posted by theda: I did a quick Google search for you and found some results. Most of the information looks accurate compared to the legal advice I have gotten: May 30 05 10:33 pm Link Interesting. I've never heard that before. It's a new layer of stickiness. However, the section you quote seems to be addressing only the issue of displaying the work at an art exhibit. Once you sell the print, you've crossed over from simple free speech into commerce, haven't you? May 30 05 10:51 pm Link Posted by theda: There is a lot of gray area here as in all Intellectual Property issues. You or I could sell a book full of the art prints without a model release, but we need a signed release for the image on the cover of the book. May 30 05 11:16 pm Link Posted by theda: Can't argue with that. Selling + buying = commerce. May 30 05 11:21 pm Link Posted by Bruce Caines: Except for editorial usage and "Art, Books, Exhibitions, Presentations, Etc." May 30 05 11:36 pm Link Back to the original topic, which was revenue sharing... I almost never do revenue sharing, for several reasons. It is a bookeeping and administrative nightmare. It is natural to loose touch with a model over time. Sure, it is easy to get ahold of a model that I worked with a few weeks ago. But how about a model I worked with a few years ago? If you sell a photo of a model you shoot 10 years ago, can you easily find how much you agreed to share revenue, and do you have a current address to send them a check? Now multiply this by several models a week over several years. In addition, it sounds like you are talking about art prints. I make an acceptable profit if I sell art prints off my website. However, gallery shows are largely for fun and exposure, and a bit of prestige. There is very little money in gallery shows, and sometimes you can even loose money. Say a gallery wants to show 6 of my photos. I pay to make all the prints, and pay for matting and framing. The gallery gets 50% of the gross. That doesn't leave much left for me. And that is assuming that all of them sell. If only 2 sell, then it doesn't even pay enough to cover the cost of printing & framing of the 4 that didn't sell. Having to pay a percentage to the model on top of all that would make the whole situation worse. So I either pay the model a flat fee for commercial work, or do it TFP if it is appropriate (almost all of my art photography is done TFP). About the only time I pay the model a percentage is if they send a person to me who buys a print. This thread has been sidetracked onto the subject of model releases, copyright, editorial vs. commercial, etc. I don't want to go into it here, but a lot of the "legal" information being thrown around on this thread is inaccurate or completely wrong. Please don't rely on a model/photography forum for accurate legal advice. May 31 05 10:34 am Link |
