Profit sharing with the model?
I recently clicked a photo of a friend at a restaurant, and with his permission, uploaded it onto my flickr/facebook profiles.
A bunch people (mostly my friends or his friends) liked the pic on facebook and consequently, I jokingly asked him to consider paying me.
That's when the situation turned interesting.
He thinks I should sell it to the general public (he'll sign a release) but profits should be equally split.
I have my doubts. Sure he posed, but that's about it. I had spontaneously thought it'd be interesting to shoot.
Apart from thinking of the shot, I had to arrange the lights a bit, shoot, get it processed and scanned etc. All at my own time and cost.
What do you guys think? Is there a precedent of sorts for these situations?
The photo titled Mohit is in question.
Last edited by KanFotog; 09-12-2011 at 06:18 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: Linking my flickr page
Is he a famous person? If not, I don't see what makes this a saleable photo, and wouldn't worry too much about it.
You should provide a direct link to the image, if you want to discuss it here, rather than to your flickr stream, otherwise it looks like you are just trying to get people to look at your flickr page.
Don't expect much "profit" if any.
Not after you subtract your operating costs.
I'll sometimes share 10-15% for stock sales with models.
Last edited by brucemuir; 09-12-2011 at 06:57 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Didn't intend to...
Sorry David, didn't mean to grab attention.
Here's the direct link:
He isn't a famous person and I'm not actually considering selling the pic.
I was just wondering if it was a pic that people would be willing to buy, does 50/50 seem justified?
More a thought experiment at this stage but in future, if/when the day comes, hopefully I'll have some clarity on the matter
Thanks for the direct link.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
When you work with a model, any model, to create a commercially salable photo the deal is whatever you two decide is fair.
If he wants half and your not willing to pay that, just don't sell it.
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
If you want to sell photographs commercially, you should come to an agreement BEFORE taking the picture what you would do in the event of a sale.
Usually a model will get compensation for being a model. Either you barter work for work; they help you with being the model and you help them with their portfolio. Or you pay them.
If it's a famous model the price tag goes up, and they may wish to negotiate for a portion of future revenue as well.
But you basically make a contract. Written better than verbal or hand shake.
Originally Posted by KanFotog
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
Since you have published it, should you not already have a release? Maybe times have change b/c of the internet but when I used to shoot persons I got releases for a photo such as yours. It covered contingincies such as displaying it in an exhibit. Back then for street shots like yours, I simply exchanged the release for a dollar and the model initialed that he received in on the release. Hence he admitted quid pro quo for the release. If a youngster, then I'd have the paent sign on his behalf. Usually for them, it only took a Polaroid to make them happy.
Profit sharing is not the same as revenue sharing so be careful. Revenue is the gross amount received before expenses and profits is after expenses. If you enter into these types of agreements see an accountant or lawyer to determine and understand both the teminology and calculations. If you do not, you can be bitten quite badly.
Don't most professional models work for an hourly rate or a flat fee? Most Hollywood movie stars work for a fee. Granted, those fees are in the millions but it's a fee, none the less.
However, I'm with Mark. Payment is whatever the two parties agree on.
I have been in discussions like this with people whose picture I take.
I am always happy to share with people but they have to realize whose equipment is being used, whose raw materials (film, paper & chemistry) are being used, whose time will be spent after the photo has been taken, whose education and expertise is being utilized and whose artistic vision is being used to create that salable image. It's me, not him, who is putting forth all the time, all the work and all the money. If he wants to foot half the bill for your capital outlays, maybe he can share in half the profit.
When I take photos of other people, I almost always share the results with them. Usually that's a postcard sized print. In fact, I have postcard stock on hand just for the purpose. If it's a really good photo I might make them an 8x10. Other than that, I don't believe I am obliged to pay people for the privilege of taking their photo unless it is a prearranged modelling session, in advance.
One thing that people absolutely don't understand is what it costs you to make a photograph:
Cost of film: $2 to $5 per roll.
Cost of film chems.: $1 to $3 per roll.
Cost of paper: $1 to $2 per sheet.
Cost of paper chems.: $1 to $5 per printing session. (Including toners, wash water, etc.)
Your time in the field: I get paid $15 per hour at my job.
Your time in the darkroom: $15 per hour for me.
One Frame of Film: ($6 ÷ 12) per roll of 120 + ($3 ÷ 12) for chems. = $0.75
One Sheet of Paper: $1 per sheet + ($3 ÷ 20) for chems. = $1.10
Field time: 1 hour * $15/hr. = $15.00
Darkroom time: 2 hours * $15/hr. = $30.00
I think I'm being generous with my costs and my time. The cost of just one picture can EASILY top $50.00 and we haven't even gone into how much your equipment cost to buy.
So... Does your friend want to pay YOU half the cost you had to bear in order to take his photograph? That would be $25.00.
If he does pay, he should be entitled to half the profits. If not, he can go pound salt up his a$$.
Okay, okay... I know... I'm over dramatizing my case, quite a bit.
However, my point is that there are expenses involved that the other person is not considering. The bottom line is that YOU are laying out money and time to be a photographer. Other people need to consider that before they go asking for a share of your profits.
And a very good point indeed!
Originally Posted by Worker 11811