Watch out for this freelance "Photographer"
Discussion
Bit of a long read however it is definitely worth spending the time & forming your own opinion on Sunny (registered as Shooter on the supra forum).
Summary - Lee, one of our long standing members and very well respected tuner simply wanted some shots of his car as memorabilia as he has dismantled the car in order to recoup some money back for his business - the photographer effectively tries to extort him of GBP600 for 6 photos and some physical prints that Lee didnt even want.
http://mkivsupra.net/vbb/showthread.php?260933-Adv...
Independent of Photography, the guy is a clear example of how NOT to dish their dirty laundry in public.
Summary - Lee, one of our long standing members and very well respected tuner simply wanted some shots of his car as memorabilia as he has dismantled the car in order to recoup some money back for his business - the photographer effectively tries to extort him of GBP600 for 6 photos and some physical prints that Lee didnt even want.
http://mkivsupra.net/vbb/showthread.php?260933-Adv...
Independent of Photography, the guy is a clear example of how NOT to dish their dirty laundry in public.
I wonder if he ever got paid for the original shoot? That might be where the £600 comes from.
I don't know what copyright agreement was made with the now-defunct magazine, nor whether, if he signed it over, it stands in light if their demise. Probably the photographer is within his rights to ask whatever he wants for the files/prints, but doesn't understand that a member of the public is very unlikely to pay £600 for six image files and associated prints.
It may be that he was never paid and is trying to get his shoot fee back - or maybe he got paid and is being greedy/unrealistic. They may be worth £600 to him, but obviously not to the car owner.
I don't know what copyright agreement was made with the now-defunct magazine, nor whether, if he signed it over, it stands in light if their demise. Probably the photographer is within his rights to ask whatever he wants for the files/prints, but doesn't understand that a member of the public is very unlikely to pay £600 for six image files and associated prints.
It may be that he was never paid and is trying to get his shoot fee back - or maybe he got paid and is being greedy/unrealistic. They may be worth £600 to him, but obviously not to the car owner.
Simpo Two said:
I wonder if he ever got paid for the original shoot? That might be where the £600 comes from.
From what I could gather, everyone lost out. He realised that Lee was very keen on the photos as there is no way he would be able to take them ever again and decided to exploit him to the max. The BS around running a business and the art of photography was the icing on the cake.Simpo Two said:
I don't know what copyright agreement was made with the now-defunct magazine, nor whether, if he signed it over, it stands in light if their demise. Probably the photographer is within his rights to ask whatever he wants for the files/prints, but doesn't understand that a member of the public is very unlikely to pay £600 for six image files and associated prints.
Who knows who really owns the copyright, him OR as he was contracted by the now bust magazine THEY own the copyright. independent of that, there is a way one should conduct themselves as in a public forum as every post if a potential opportunity to market ones business.Lee was simply looking for some good shots as memorabilia, certainly not looking for publication quality photos and physical prints.
Anyway it is what it is, shame it didn't have an amicable ending for either party. Some will agree with shooter, others wont.
The guy got paid, he just didn't get paid in full.
What is really annoying me is that the guy is trying to recoup the full value of his services from a private customer just looking for some pictures of his car. If you read the whole thread, which would take a while, he was actually offered a reduced fee from another magazine but refused as he didn't want to lower the cost of his services, even though he had already been paid most of the money towards that particular set.
The guy shows nothing but greed yet tries to cover for it by using words like Art, Ethics and Business Acumen. He is clueless to the meanings of any of these words and just tries to hide behind them.
It seems completely insane from my perspective but the difference with this guy is that once he got a hold of that spade he just kept on digging.
The worst of it is that he has actually blogged the thread trying a pre-emptive strike against the forum and its members, it's going to backfire bigtime as any rational person who reads the entire thread rather than just his side of things will get the full picture, the full story and see just how ridiculous he is being in all of this.
His shots are terrible anyway, as far as professional standards go anyway. I can even tell that and I'm lucky if I hold the camera round the right way when taking a picture.
What is really annoying me is that the guy is trying to recoup the full value of his services from a private customer just looking for some pictures of his car. If you read the whole thread, which would take a while, he was actually offered a reduced fee from another magazine but refused as he didn't want to lower the cost of his services, even though he had already been paid most of the money towards that particular set.
The guy shows nothing but greed yet tries to cover for it by using words like Art, Ethics and Business Acumen. He is clueless to the meanings of any of these words and just tries to hide behind them.
It seems completely insane from my perspective but the difference with this guy is that once he got a hold of that spade he just kept on digging.
The worst of it is that he has actually blogged the thread trying a pre-emptive strike against the forum and its members, it's going to backfire bigtime as any rational person who reads the entire thread rather than just his side of things will get the full picture, the full story and see just how ridiculous he is being in all of this.
His shots are terrible anyway, as far as professional standards go anyway. I can even tell that and I'm lucky if I hold the camera round the right way when taking a picture.
I didn't read beyond the first few posts so wasn't aware the tog had been crashing around making it worse, and I haven't seen the photos. That aside, from first principles:
ker' type replies from people who don't rely on photography for a living.
ihshaikh said:
From what I could gather, everyone lost out. He realised that Lee was very keen on the photos as there is no way he would be able to take them ever again and decided to exploit him to the max. The BS around running a business and the art of photography was the icing on the cake.
Fair enough, he tried to make a case but failed. They're worth £600 to him but not to anyone else. I'm not taking sides, just trying to offer an alternative to the 'what a wker' type replies from people who don't rely on photography for a living.ihshaikh said:
Who knows who really owns the copyright, him OR as he was contracted by the now bust magazine THEY own the copyright
This is a commonly held misbelief - paying money to have photos taken does NOT confer copyright. Copyright is held by the author of the work (the tog) unless specifically assigned otherwise ihshaikh said:
Anyway it is what it is, shame it didn't have an amicable ending for either party. Some will agree with shooter, others wont.
As you say it's a pity there wasn't a happy middle-ground.
Have to say, I've read only a few of the pages, but clearly there is nobody on that site that has the first clue about the photography or publishing business.
comments like... "You were lucky enough to be able to snap one of the best supras in the uk, and you treat the owner like this."
I mean, seriously... do you not think that every mummy that takes her little tinkerbell into a studio thinks she's the best child in the world and the photographer should think himself lucky to be able to photograph her?! Some suggesting instead of prints the shooter should hand over RAW files?!!
I'm not agreeing with the 'tog in question here, not by a very very long shot but quite a few of the posters on there are making complete tits of themselves with their postings!
comments like... "You were lucky enough to be able to snap one of the best supras in the uk, and you treat the owner like this."
I mean, seriously... do you not think that every mummy that takes her little tinkerbell into a studio thinks she's the best child in the world and the photographer should think himself lucky to be able to photograph her?! Some suggesting instead of prints the shooter should hand over RAW files?!!
I'm not agreeing with the 'tog in question here, not by a very very long shot but quite a few of the posters on there are making complete tits of themselves with their postings!
I think I'm taking the Photographer's POV. He's not a million miles out with his £400-600 pricing. I'm cheap (and crap)- about £50/hr to shoot in my studio and include a low-res CD and 1 A3 / 1 A4 prints. An 8-hour day c£400. IIRC the recommended day rate starts from £800.
Camera Equipment c£300pm, studio similar plus £150pm for lighting. Twice shoot time is post processing. So in short to cover £750pm equipment and get a national average salary of £2100pm a tog would need to do two shoots a week (remember thats 5-6 days work incl post processing). Then there's admin, marketing etc, etc on top. What price creativity?
As I said I think I'm taking the Photographer's POV.
Camera Equipment c£300pm, studio similar plus £150pm for lighting. Twice shoot time is post processing. So in short to cover £750pm equipment and get a national average salary of £2100pm a tog would need to do two shoots a week (remember thats 5-6 days work incl post processing). Then there's admin, marketing etc, etc on top. What price creativity?
As I said I think I'm taking the Photographer's POV.
nellyleelephant said:
The shooter of the pics seems doesn't seem to understand how to market himself or sell reputation, but the other posters don't seem to understand that professional pictures do need time which = money.....maybe not £600 for 6 prints though!
I think this sums it up perfectly.£100 per print is not unreasonable IF both parties have agreed the usage and rights costs up front.
Bottom line is that a lot of people want something for nothing these days and cannot see that a professional's skill and knowledge has a monetary value.
I think people need to realise that the person requesting copies of the pics is not the Client. The photographer was hired by a magazine for a shoot of a Supra. Mag went bust, tog got screwed as did others. Car owner wants pics of his car for personal use and to put up on his website (thus promoting the tog as well). Tog saw a way to claw back some lost cash not expecting backlash.
Read the thread on Supranet. Some well reasoned opinions from industry bods who deal with freelance togs.
Personally I think the tog missed a trick big time with his short sighted greed. He's now got himself in a bit of an internet ststorm with passionate and educated petrolheads.
Read the thread on Supranet. Some well reasoned opinions from industry bods who deal with freelance togs.
Personally I think the tog missed a trick big time with his short sighted greed. He's now got himself in a bit of an internet s
tstorm with passionate and educated petrolheads. I also agree with the photographer. Whatever arrangement was made between him and the magazine originally is irrelevant. The guy who wants the photos has requested prints, and been given a price. He can either accept it and pay, or not. The photographer owes him nothing, despite what the braying fools in that thread seem to think.
Had calmer heads prevailed, he may have been able to negotiate price or the package to something he could afford, but enlisting an internet hate mob to go around bad mouthing the photographer isn't really going to get him what he wants. I also disagree that the photographer should be pressured into giving them away because it's 'good publicity'. That's his choice, and he shouldn't be receiving a ststorm because of it.
Edit - why is the thread now not viewable without being a member?
Had calmer heads prevailed, he may have been able to negotiate price or the package to something he could afford, but enlisting an internet hate mob to go around bad mouthing the photographer isn't really going to get him what he wants. I also disagree that the photographer should be pressured into giving them away because it's 'good publicity'. That's his choice, and he shouldn't be receiving a s
tstorm because of it.Edit - why is the thread now not viewable without being a member?
ian in lancs said:
I think I'm taking the Photographer's POV. He's not a million miles out with his £400-600 pricing. I'm cheap (and crap)- about £50/hr to shoot in my studio and include a low-res CD and 1 A3 / 1 A4 prints. An 8-hour day c£400. IIRC the recommended day rate starts from £800.
Camera Equipment c£300pm, studio similar plus £150pm for lighting. Twice shoot time is post processing. So in short to cover £750pm equipment and get a national average salary of £2100pm a tog would need to do two shoots a week (remember thats 5-6 days work incl post processing). Then there's admin, marketing etc, etc on top. What price creativity?
As I said I think I'm taking the Photographer's POV.
Camera Equipment c£300pm, studio similar plus £150pm for lighting. Twice shoot time is post processing. So in short to cover £750pm equipment and get a national average salary of £2100pm a tog would need to do two shoots a week (remember thats 5-6 days work incl post processing). Then there's admin, marketing etc, etc on top. What price creativity?
As I said I think I'm taking the Photographer's POV.
tank slapper said:
I also agree with the photographer. Whatever arrangement was made between him and the magazine originally is irrelevant. The guy who wants the photos has requested prints, and been given a price. He can either accept it and pay, or not. The photographer owes him nothing, despite what the braying fools in that thread seem to think.
Had calmer heads prevailed, he may have been able to negotiate price or the package to something he could afford, but enlisting an internet hate mob to go around bad mouthing the photographer isn't really going to get him what he wants. I also disagree that the photographer should be pressured into giving them away because it's 'good publicity'. That's his choice, and he shouldn't be receiving a ststorm because of it.
Edit - why is the thread now not viewable without being a member?
I'm also going to take the 'togs point of view, he can charge as much or as little as he likes for his work. Reminds me of Mike Monteiro's "fHad calmer heads prevailed, he may have been able to negotiate price or the package to something he could afford, but enlisting an internet hate mob to go around bad mouthing the photographer isn't really going to get him what he wants. I also disagree that the photographer should be pressured into giving them away because it's 'good publicity'. That's his choice, and he shouldn't be receiving a s
tstorm because of it.Edit - why is the thread now not viewable without being a member?
k You Pay Me" seminars - http://fstoppers.com/fck-you-pay-me-a-guide-to-con...I can understand people taking sides with the photographer because they understand the business he is in etc but I'm not so sure you are all making informed decisions when it comes to what some of you are basing your opinion on.
The Photographer was hired to take some pics for a magazine. The pics were taken, they were edited etc and the photographer got the large sum of his payment, reading between the lines I think he was missing some expenses.
During the time between the photos being taken and the magazine going to print the company went bust. This meant that a LOT of people lost out on a lot of money and the photographer was not paid the expense money that he was owed.
Not long after this the person who had helped the photographer out all day and been an assosciate/employee/writer of the magazine contacted him explaining a deal that was available from another magazine. He was doing the writeup and the photos previously taken would be used to make the article. The money on offer was £350 to split between the writer and the photographer. The photographer wasn't happy and said that while £350 would be acceptable, leaving the writer with nothing, he couldn't do it for any less. Now, at this point bare in mind there is no shoot to take place, everything has already been done all that is being asked is the supply, and potential touchup, of already taken photos from a shoot that has for the most part been paid for.
Not sure what happened inbetween time but there was mention of the photographer accepting a fee of £250 for said photos but the photos then being rejected due to them not being up to the standard that the magazine accepts.... so again that deal fell on its bum.
Fast forward to a few days back. The owner of the car that was photographed wanted a few pics of his car to remember how good it was. He got the contact info and made contact with the photographer. Not to ask for something for nothing he asked for some prints of the car, that way the photographer would make the money on the prints and not be doing it for nothing. This is when it all turned sour as the photographer then stamped a price of £600 on the photos. The owner was shocked so asked about digital prints, raw/jpeg/whatever, touched up/untouched whatever... just some photos of his car. Whatever the photographer wanted to do to them to protect his work etc he was welcome to do. All the guy wanted was some pics of his car in its glory. The photographer then explained that the £600 was to cover his costs of taking the photos, editing the photos, etc etc etc. Virtually all the work that has already taken place. The pics are sitting on his HDD right now ready to print, that's all that the owner is asking for.... some prints... not a photoshoot.
The guy shows nothing but greed IMO. I can't really see how, knowing all the facts, anyone can see anything other than a greedy individual trying to make a lot of money on something that, for the most part, has already been paid for.
All the guy wants is some pics, he isn't even particularly fussed about the quality, size, etc.
IMO £250 was a decent offer but the guy is nothing but an opportunist hiding behind the word artist.
The Photographer was hired to take some pics for a magazine. The pics were taken, they were edited etc and the photographer got the large sum of his payment, reading between the lines I think he was missing some expenses.
During the time between the photos being taken and the magazine going to print the company went bust. This meant that a LOT of people lost out on a lot of money and the photographer was not paid the expense money that he was owed.
Not long after this the person who had helped the photographer out all day and been an assosciate/employee/writer of the magazine contacted him explaining a deal that was available from another magazine. He was doing the writeup and the photos previously taken would be used to make the article. The money on offer was £350 to split between the writer and the photographer. The photographer wasn't happy and said that while £350 would be acceptable, leaving the writer with nothing, he couldn't do it for any less. Now, at this point bare in mind there is no shoot to take place, everything has already been done all that is being asked is the supply, and potential touchup, of already taken photos from a shoot that has for the most part been paid for.
Not sure what happened inbetween time but there was mention of the photographer accepting a fee of £250 for said photos but the photos then being rejected due to them not being up to the standard that the magazine accepts.... so again that deal fell on its bum.
Fast forward to a few days back. The owner of the car that was photographed wanted a few pics of his car to remember how good it was. He got the contact info and made contact with the photographer. Not to ask for something for nothing he asked for some prints of the car, that way the photographer would make the money on the prints and not be doing it for nothing. This is when it all turned sour as the photographer then stamped a price of £600 on the photos. The owner was shocked so asked about digital prints, raw/jpeg/whatever, touched up/untouched whatever... just some photos of his car. Whatever the photographer wanted to do to them to protect his work etc he was welcome to do. All the guy wanted was some pics of his car in its glory. The photographer then explained that the £600 was to cover his costs of taking the photos, editing the photos, etc etc etc. Virtually all the work that has already taken place. The pics are sitting on his HDD right now ready to print, that's all that the owner is asking for.... some prints... not a photoshoot.
The guy shows nothing but greed IMO. I can't really see how, knowing all the facts, anyone can see anything other than a greedy individual trying to make a lot of money on something that, for the most part, has already been paid for.
All the guy wants is some pics, he isn't even particularly fussed about the quality, size, etc.
IMO £250 was a decent offer but the guy is nothing but an opportunist hiding behind the word artist.
Edited by The_Scotster on Friday 6th January 20:52
The_Scotster said:
I can understand people taking sides with the photographer because they understand the business he is in etc but I'm not so sure you are all making informed decisions when it comes to what some of you are basing your opinion on.
The Photographer was hired to take some pics for a magazine. The pics were taken, they were edited etc and the photographer got the large sum of his payment, reading between the lines I think he was missing some expenses.[/footnote]
When I was an apprentice cabinet maker, I was commissioned to make a piece of furniture for a client. The client went bust. I was left with a piece of furniture. An acquaintance with whom I had no real dealings other than occasionally doing some bits with asked if they could 'have' it as the client didn't want it. I said they could buy it at a fair price for both of us. The Photographer was hired to take some pics for a magazine. The pics were taken, they were edited etc and the photographer got the large sum of his payment, reading between the lines I think he was missing some expenses.[/footnote]
Should I have given it to them free, or at a price that saw me at a loss still?
If yes, why?
If no, what is the difference between a cabinet and a photograph, and why do you place no value on the craftsmanship of the photographer?
ETA - BTW he saw the value of my cabinet and paid me
Depends, were you initially paid for your work on the cabinet and the materials to make it?
If you were, or partially paid, then I would say a discounted rate would be fair. Under no uncertain terms would I expect you to be out of pocket for any work you have done. Whatever it takes for you to be paid in full for your time is what I would deem to be acceptable.
If it's a totally seperate party then I would see no issue with seeing it as a win some - lose some scenario and advertising the cabinet for full price, as afterall it costs what it would normally cost.
Edit:
To put your cabinet into this current scenario.....
You agree a price of £400 for said cabinet. You are paid £300 up front to cover materials and costs and you will be paid the other £100 when the cabinet is delivered. Before you finish the cabinet the company sourcing it goes bust and you are left with the cabinet and £100 short of the agreed price. Your costs for materials etc have been covered so you are not out of pocket in that sense but you are definitely out of profit as you are £100 short of the agreed price.
A few weeks later the person who wanted the cabinet, that was sourced through the 3rd party bust company, approaches you and asks if you would sell him the cabinet directly.
It is at this point, through talking with the customer, that you find out that only you can supply this cabinet (for whatever reason) and you can hold the guy to ransom. You decide that due to these circumstances the cabinet is now going to cost £600 but at that value it will come with the shavings you have carved off of it for free (useless materials that you have already been paid for, much like photos) but you will give it 6 coats of varnish for this price. The customer feels irked as he was paying £500 and knows that the 3rd party company were taking £100 of that so he KNOWS how much you were being paid for the cabinet. He then asks the opinion of his friends in how to proceed.
When it goes public you decide to use words like "ethics", "business acumen", "art" and "morals" to describe your standing in the situation while others tend to use the word "Greed", "opportunist" and other not so clean words.
Do you think the above scenario is fair? I understand that you can do what you wish, it is your cupboard and you have the rights to do as you wish, but regarding morality, ethics and good business acumen...... does it make sense?
If you were, or partially paid, then I would say a discounted rate would be fair. Under no uncertain terms would I expect you to be out of pocket for any work you have done. Whatever it takes for you to be paid in full for your time is what I would deem to be acceptable.
If it's a totally seperate party then I would see no issue with seeing it as a win some - lose some scenario and advertising the cabinet for full price, as afterall it costs what it would normally cost.
Edit:
To put your cabinet into this current scenario.....
You agree a price of £400 for said cabinet. You are paid £300 up front to cover materials and costs and you will be paid the other £100 when the cabinet is delivered. Before you finish the cabinet the company sourcing it goes bust and you are left with the cabinet and £100 short of the agreed price. Your costs for materials etc have been covered so you are not out of pocket in that sense but you are definitely out of profit as you are £100 short of the agreed price.
A few weeks later the person who wanted the cabinet, that was sourced through the 3rd party bust company, approaches you and asks if you would sell him the cabinet directly.
It is at this point, through talking with the customer, that you find out that only you can supply this cabinet (for whatever reason) and you can hold the guy to ransom. You decide that due to these circumstances the cabinet is now going to cost £600 but at that value it will come with the shavings you have carved off of it for free (useless materials that you have already been paid for, much like photos) but you will give it 6 coats of varnish for this price. The customer feels irked as he was paying £500 and knows that the 3rd party company were taking £100 of that so he KNOWS how much you were being paid for the cabinet. He then asks the opinion of his friends in how to proceed.
When it goes public you decide to use words like "ethics", "business acumen", "art" and "morals" to describe your standing in the situation while others tend to use the word "Greed", "opportunist" and other not so clean words.
Do you think the above scenario is fair? I understand that you can do what you wish, it is your cupboard and you have the rights to do as you wish, but regarding morality, ethics and good business acumen...... does it make sense?
Edited by The_Scotster on Friday 6th January 22:00
Davi said:
When I was an apprentice cabinet maker, I was commissioned to make a piece of furniture for a client. The client went bust. I was left with a piece of furniture. An acquaintance with whom I had no real dealings other than occasionally doing some bits with asked if they could 'have' it as the client didn't want it. I said they could buy it at a fair price for both of us.
Should I have given it to them free, or at a price that saw me at a loss still?
If yes, why?
If no, what is the difference between a cabinet and a photograph, and why do you place no value on the craftsmanship of the photographer?
ETA - BTW he saw the value of my cabinet and paid me
In order for this analogy to accurately represent the Photo case the cabinet would have to be engraved with the name of the client. Should I have given it to them free, or at a price that saw me at a loss still?
If yes, why?
If no, what is the difference between a cabinet and a photograph, and why do you place no value on the craftsmanship of the photographer?
ETA - BTW he saw the value of my cabinet and paid me
With that in mind, how does it impact its sale now?
and no, the client isn't a Michael Jackson
what a bunch of plonkers. The photographer can charge as much as he wants for his photos, and is under no obligation to give them away. just as a shopkeeper can set the price of his goods that he has in stock. Pricing them too high might be bad business, but that is the photographer's problem, not the whiny forum members'.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff