How much $$ to charge for full image rights??

[brucelynn]

I have only been selling my photography for about a year so I don't know much about how much to charge. A client has asked me how much will I charge them to give them full ownership rights to an image.

I have been getting between $2,000 and $3,000 (us dollars) per framed large format (4 to 7 foot) image. Some of these I have sold multiple copies of so by keeping the ownership rights to the images I have made quite a bit.

I was thinking of charging $15,000 to $20,000 to give up all rights to a single image. This would roughly be the equivilent profit I'd make from selling 5 to 10 large scale copies of an image. I'd love to hear from a few seasoned pros to find out if I am thinking about this correctly or if there is a better way to come up with the "full rights" fee.

Thanks in advance,

Bru

http://www.brucelynn.com

 

[visualreporter]

It depends on what the main purpose of the image will be.

If it is for unlimited use in advertising for a large corporation, then the sky is the limit.

If it is for a small, non-profit company to promote AIDS funding to Africa, then your fee should be minimal.

Lots of uses for images out there. . .

 

[caribou]

hi

I really like your light painting photos. there is quite a market for those type of paintings over here and they sell as originals between 2000-10000$
in the UK

can you explain light painting technique.
how many seconds etc what lights used

 

[Schulzarbutus]

I would definately throw in some wallets.

 

[brucelynn]

If it is for unlimited use in advertising for a large corporation,
then the sky is the limit.

Yes, unlimited use by a large corporation. I would never ask for that kind of money from a non-profit organization that helps people..

-Bru

http://www.brucelynn.com

 

[brucelynn]

I really like your light painting photos.
can you explain light painting technique.
how many seconds etc what lights used

Thanks Caribou,

The light paintings were 30 second to 5 minute exposures. Painting was done with flashlights, lasers, blow torches and camera flash. We are currently working on making 6 foot light boxes to display them in.

-Bru

http://www.brucelynn.com

 

[brucelynn]

I would definately throw in some wallets.

Maybe a few refridgerator magnet frames as well...

-Bru

 

[rustedborg]

I have only been selling my photography for about a year so I don't
know much about how much to charge. A client has asked me how much
will I charge them to give them full ownership rights to an image.

I have been getting between $2,000 and $3,000 (us dollars) per
framed large format (4 to 7 foot) image. Some of these I have sold
multiple copies of so by keeping the ownership rights to the images
I have made quite a bit.

I was thinking of charging $15,000 to $20,000 to give up all rights
to a single image. This would roughly be the equivilent profit I'd
make from selling 5 to 10 large scale copies of an image. I'd love
to hear from a few seasoned pros to find out if I am thinking about
this correctly or if there is a better way to come up with the
"full rights" fee.

You already hit on the issue of "How much could you make selling the photo if you didn't give up the rights?"

But now there are a few other things to consider:

How big is the company (and how big is the company's wallet)? As mentioned by others, selling usage rights to a non-profit charity group is different than selling all rights to a major corporation for a nationwide print and online ad campaign with full-page ads running in major magazines and newspapers, billboards, and in-store displays.

Also, how much use is the photo going to see and how prominent is the usage? I might get two different requests from a national restaurant chain for photography for advertisements. One for a low-res image that runs on a single webpage on the restaurant's website and another request for a different photo that will run in a nation-wide ad campaign with full-page color ads in every major city newspaper in the country.

I'm going to charge anywhere from a couple hundred dollars to a grand for one little photo (or a couple little photos) that is being used on one little webpage (more if it's a great photo and if the client wants all rights). I'm going to charge anywhere from $5,000 to $30,000 (or more) depending on the photo and the nature of the usage for a huge ad campaign with a huge client.

Another thing to consider is the potential for future business. I've taken less money for some ad agency jobs because I knew that there was the potential to make a lot more money from the client in the future. The trick is not to price yourself too low otherwise you'll have a hard time getting paid well on those future jobs.

To be honest, I also try to find out what my client's budget is for photography up front. While I've occassionally asked for more money than what a client has budgeted, there's no point in me asking the client for $20,000 if the client's budget is $5,000 max. If that is the situation I either need to accept $5,000 or tell the client to look for another photographer.

 

[brucelynn]

Thanks for the input Rusty. This is just the kind of info I was looking for. I guess I should ask them more about how they intend to use the image. My take was that since they wanted full rights, the would have to pay top dollar because they could decide to use the image for anything they wish once they have full rights.

-Bru

http://www.brucelynn.com

 

[jimcreative]

I have been in the business 23 years, albeit shooting architecture, and I have heard all kinds of stories about the photographers who won't part with an image for any use for less than 2K a pop or the guy who wanted to sub a job out to me (I refused) for a couple of thousand dollars while thinking he could turn it for 40K. The story about the photographer who told me face to face that 3 architectural shots of a building should be 2400.00 and then 2 weeks later he bids 3K for a 15 shoot job.

I have come to the conclusion that many photographers are better liars than photogaphers, or at least more prolific at the former.

I was asked to shoot about 8 signs on businesses about 4 years ago. The company wanted to use the images for a trade show and possibly on a website. The marketing director told me that one photographer had quoted 72,000.00 to take those 8 shots and release the non-exclulsive rights.

How much of this talk is legit and how much is make believe? Especially then statistics show that the average photog makes less than 45K/yr.

I think most people are blowing it out the nether-regions.

 

[Richard Katris]

If they mean unlimited rights of usage....but NOT exclusive rights...it could help you sell more of your product yourself. If you explain to them that you will NOT be able to make additional sales...what you are selling them for now.....and offer two prices...one...exclusive ownership taking into acct all future lost sales in the estimate....and another considerably reduced price offering them NON exclusive unlimited usage.....it puts the ball in their camp with a very legitimate explanation for the exorbitant amount you are asking for exclusive use/ownership.....see how badly they want that exclusiveness.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

 

[rustedborg]

I was asked to shoot about 8 signs on businesses about 4 years ago.
The company wanted to use the images for a trade show and possibly
on a website. The marketing director told me that one photographer
had quoted 72,000.00 to take those 8 shots and release the
non-exclulsive rights.

How much of this talk is legit and how much is make believe?
Especially then statistics show that the average photog makes less
than 45K/yr.

I think most people are blowing it out the nether-regions.

I've only had three commercial jobs paying in the five-figure range. That said, I haven't been doing commercial work as long as I've been doing work for magazines, book publishers, and more recently weddings and portraits.

I recently did a job for a client's website where I delivered less than 3 dozen images for use on the client's website for a total of just under $2,000.00 for non-exclusive rights.

Another (smaller) client is using three of my photographs for in-store displays in a couple hundred grocery stores across the country ... and I'm making less than $500 for that usage (although I made around $800 for the photography when I shot it for the client a year ago.)

In both cases we're talking about commercial product photography ... so it's not like I'm going to get a lot of offers from other people for the photos in question ... unless someone really wants to buy photos of laundry detergent or cookies as "fine art."

If the clients were asking for usage of photos that I believed had potential revenue-generating ability outside of those clients, I would have asked for more depending on the rights they wanted. I've never sold a single fine art print for $1,000+ ... but if I knew I could make $1,000+ by selling a print to someone looking for a fine art print I'm going to ask for MUCH more than $10,000 if a company wants to buy all rights or exclusive rights to the photo.

If it's a photo I don't expect to make money from and a client wants to buy it I'll sell it for CHEAP. I once did a 9 hours of on-location photography and delivered more than 200 image files to a client who wanted photography for their company brochure for less than $900.

 

[brucelynn]

They have expressed their desire for the full ownership rights to the images. They said that they have had this arrangement with all previous photographers and that would be a prerequisite for any image that they purchase from me. This would mean I could no longer publicly show or sell any of the images they buy from me.

Luckily for me they have been letting me take my fine art shots at their location which I do have the rights to sell, I only have to relinquish ownership rights on the images they choose to buy.

-Bru

http://www.brucelynn.com

 

[jimcreative]

What you just posted sounds a lot more like the reality of the situation. I have a few clients who would not, and do not, blink at dropping 1600.00 - 1800.00 for 3-4 views of architecture plus their typical marketing use.

Last night I shot 6 photos for a website (I hardly ever do explicit 'website' work) and these guys 5'd and dime'd down to 1100.00 for the whole shebang, but hey, it was either that or watch Sponge Bob.

Architecture is not the most lucrative of photographic fields and it is rare when I get an assignment that tops 5-6K, but a get a ton of them that come in from 1.5 - 3. I have always been an 'outsider' to the industry because I am comletely self-taught and belong to no professional associations. I still hear of photographers selliing third-party rights to images they took for 400.00 a piece by marking them up to 1500.00/image and I think that ikind of practice give photographers a bad name.

Ie., the value of the photography should not be directly proportional to the depth of the clients' pockets.

 

[rustedborg]

Architecture is not the most lucrative of photographic fields and
it is rare when I get an assignment that tops 5-6K, but a get a ton
of them that come in from 1.5 - 3. I have always been an
'outsider' to the industry because I am comletely self-taught and
belong to no professional associations.

Those professional associations don't mean much. Anyone who can pay the membership dues can join most of them. They might impress people who don't know any better but most of them have no real benefit ... except making money for the people in charge of the association. There are a couple that give members some nice perks ... like the National Association of Photoshop Professionals gets you free shipping from B&H.

Anyway, my point is that I used to pay to join professional associations and now I don't. The only people who care are people who don't know that their garage mechanic could join the "professional association" if he paid the dues.

Ie., the value of the photography should not be directly
proportional to the depth of the clients' pockets.

No. However, when I've got bills to pay and groceries to buy you can bet that I'm going to charge more if the client has pockets that are deep enough to pay more.