I used to do this with some of my writing. We would put our name alphabetically, and call it a collaboration. Some times I was first other times they were. If it was the same person, we would alternate. This was for fun.
If money got involved I probably would not collaborate or just split 50/50. I never did the collaborations for money, just to see what we would come up with. Money screws up a partnership.
Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI
So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004
Can I put my lawyer hat on here for a minute?
Originally Posted by mark
Money does not "screw up a partnership"*; but if you are collaborating with a partner(s) in any business endeavor you certainly should draw up a Partnership Agreement ("PA").
A well-written PA will clearly spell out the relationship and define the roles, duties and obligations of the parties. The drafting of a PA will itself "reveal" to everyone what their various expectations are and oftentimes identify "issues" that might not otherwise surface until it's too late.
Whether you collaborate for fun or profit (although I fail to see what is gained in the former instance); a written PA entered into ahead of time, whether formal or informal, will avoid a hell of a lot of grief later on.
* In fact, other than sole-proprietorship, "partnership" is the oldest form of business enterprise there is.
Money can mess up collaborations.
I once pooled resources with another photographer to produce commissioned work for a local gallery exhibition. Other artists were comissioned as well. Every artist was going to be paid the same money.
The photographs were produced, co-signed, and exhibited to the usual faint praise. Pay day was a shock. The collaborators were counted as one artist even though we produced a full share of images each. One creative spirit, one theme, one style, that means one artist doesn't it? Right?
No more collaborations for me ever since.
Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.
Collaborations in the fashion/glamour photography world is known as TFP/TFCD. Time for print/CD. It's the most common way hobbyist like myself get any images. Depending on the level of seriousness, it can me a straight exchange of a model's time for a couple prints to something more elaborate like an make up atist, clothes stylist, hair stylist, propr/backround designer, and assistants getting images/credits/tear sheets for an unlimited release to the photographer.
Now, have I been screwed? Nope. I mean everything is done for free and I give the collaborators usage to the images, plus I get unlimited releases - all in writing. Generally too, to ensure everyone gets what they want, I do images for me, the MUA and the model - all of which are different 'looks'. I hate to say it, but digital is best for collaborations in this industry. It's cheap and quick to get the results.
I do collaborations all the time. It's allowed me to expand my network and models/MUAs frequently refer other models to me. It's good for business and getting more images with new faces and new talent.
At the APUG conference last year, Margaret Malandruccolo said she too did many collaborations (TFP/YFCD) to get images to record companies. I know actors and theater companies that often do collaborations to get images too.
It's simple trade. More people should do it.
Last edited by gr82bart; 03-19-2007 at 05:22 AM. Click to view previous post history.