So I did my first baby contest and it was a total flop, only had one parent sign up for it.  I honored the $35 sitting fee that came with prints. (yeah I already know what you're thinking, lesson learned.) 

Anyway, she was supposed to pay the sitting fee the day of the shoot but had already used her last check.  She said she'd just pay when she ordered her prints b/c she said she'd order more, I agreed.  Her mom, who I'm a volunteer with, ultimately decided to buy the high res disk.  I know the daughter intends to piggy back and use the disk, as I'm sure she's responsible for talking her mom into it.  Anyway, her mom has already paid, but I still haven't gotten the $35.  She called me two weeks ago to get my address, I've emailed her twice and called once only to get no response.  I politely told the grandmother that I'd give her her disk as soon as the mom paid up. Her gallery expires today, so at least she won't have online access to them anymore. What should I do? I know it's only $35, but it's the principle of the thing...At the very least, I know not to post anything until all is paid.

J 

As the old expression goes: "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute".  Don't waste your time arguing for principles in these kinds of situations.  You have your answer due to their lack of responses and the ole "gee, I used my last check" ploy. They ain't interested. What are you going to do? Shame them into it?  Nah.  IMO, you're making yourself look smaller than they are, and yes, you have learned a number of lessons here.  In my view, among them should be (1) raise your fees to a professional level; (2) stop selling work on CD's no matter what the resolution; (3) expand your client base beyond people that you do volunteer work with.   

 Mark, I guess I'm supposed to give the disk that was sold and be perfectly ok with piggybacking? I suppose  you aren't familiar with baby contests, the lure is that you have a low fee. My fees are professional and appropriate for my area. 

Why would you assume that my only clients are friends or volunteers?  She knew me, admired my work and bought the disk. It's your opinion not to sell cds, many other photographers in this forum do sell as well. It's my highest $$$ product and most often, clients buy them. I'm happy to sell them.

Has the mother already paid for the CD?  If so, I'd send her a polite note stating that while you appreciate her order you unfortunately cannot release the disc until the sitting fee has been paid.  If she has not paid, add the $35 onto the invoice and explain the charge to her.  I would not release anything to any party until the sitting fee has been paid.

 The grandmother has paid for the disk.  That was my feeling, not to release anything until the sitting fee is paid.

JC, no, I have no idea of what "piggybacking" means in terms of photographic sales.  And no, I'm not familiar with baby contests wherein the "lure" is the (photographer?) has a low fee (or the people who participate are only willing to pay a low fee).  But you did say the woman was someone you "volunteer with" which is why I offered the comment to expand your client base beyond those you DO volunteer with.  In addition, I don't know any professional photographers (those who earn more than 50% of their income as photographers) who sell their work on CD, whether they're portrait shooters, kidnappers, commercial, editorial, or others.  And btw, dislike me for saying so, but charging $35 for a sitting fee, insofar as I'm aware, is less than K-Mart, Walmart, or any mall photographer I've ever seen or spoken to in California. It cheapens the professions and demeans the person offering the fee. I would suggest that rather than charging $35 you give that portion of your work away for nothing and find a different way to profit from it, for example, sale of prints rather than CDs.  

  

The sale of a CD has been debated here more times than I can count and isn't relevant to this thread.  Jules is asking for advice on customer relations not her pricing nor her choice of products. 

There are a few photographers on this board who have had great success with baby contests and whatnot.  And hey, who are we to judge what people choose to do with their businesses?  

$35 is not an unheard of sitting fee in my portion of California and is quite a bit more than your average Walmart/JCPenney type studio. Heck here's a site all about the great deals you can get at the Wal Mart studio for about $5 http://www.countingthecost.com/cf/cf82.htm  A quick Google search also brings up coupons to use with Target for a free sitting with a purchase of a $7.99 package as well as a couple of sites with similair coupons for Sears.  We all know what a gimmick these promotions are to say nothing of the quality of photography, it's a good thing nobody here is trying to compete with Wal Mart.

Mark Feldstein:

In addition, I don't know any professional photographers (those who earn more than 50% of their income as photographers) who sell their work on CD, whether they're portrait shooters, kidnappers, commercial, editorial, or others. 

 

 

Are you serious dude? I know you are "Digitally Impaired" but...ummm most Photojournalist, Sports Photographers, Ad, Stock shooters etc...sell Digital files, Whether on CD or uploaded FTP, they are still selling digital files.. Whether a portrait shooter should or not it depends...but it is VERY often done these days (As long as they are making the amount they should off a client who cares)

I really have a feeling you no longer pass your own test

Mark Feldstein:

JC, no, I have no idea of what "piggybacking" means in terms of photographic sales.  And no, I'm not familiar with baby contests wherein the "lure" is the (photographer?) has a low fee (or the people who participate are only willing to pay a low fee).  But you did say the woman was someone you "volunteer with" which is why I offered the comment to expand your client base beyond those you DO volunteer with.  In addition, I don't know any professional photographers (those who earn more than 50% of their income as photographers) who sell their work on CD, whether they're portrait shooters, kidnappers, commercial, editorial, or others.  And btw, dislike me for saying so, but charging $35 for a sitting fee, insofar as I'm aware, is less than K-Mart, Walmart, or any mall photographer I've ever seen or spoken to in California. It cheapens the professions and demeans the person offering the fee. I would suggest that rather than charging $35 you give that portion of your work away for nothing and find a different way to profit from it, for example, sale of prints rather than CDs.  

  

 

Seriously?! I know a couple whose wedding photography IS 100% of their income, and has been for a very good number of years, and they sell the high res cd's. With a quick poking around on this and another forum, I could probably come up with at least 15 more successful full time photographers who sell the cd's.

I'm going to side with Mark on this one.

The question boiled down to, "What do I do about the $35 sitting fee"?

His answer was to forget it and I agree.

Doing a shoot like this for a "co-worker"  whom you interact with on a regular basis is practically like doing a shoot for a family member. They usually expect a bit of leeway on matters such as fees or that they should get a freebie something. To be pestering for the $35 would be legit but down the line may actually create animosity between the photographer and the girls mother.

Also, and it has been proven countless times, the cheaper you sell your work for the less value the customer will have for it.

As for CD sales, yes, that happens. But, many of the photogs who do it charge up the Ying Yang for it and all they are selling is the "right" to reproduce the work. They usually, as far as I understand, keep the copyright.

The piggy back comment is exactly that and I believe the photographer hit the nail on the head. The customer could not afford to pay the $35 sitting fee so how could she pay for the actual work afterwards? One call to "Mom" who always wants pictures of her dear grandchild and there ya' go! Oops! Did daughter "forget" to mention the $35 siting fee? I doubt it. But you darn well know she's going to make a copy of that disc and start cranking out the prints.

Another item I need to mention is in regards to "The Truth". 

"Are you serious dude? I know you are "Digitally Impaired" but...ummm most Photojournalist, Sports Photographers, Ad, Stock shooters etc...sell Digital files, Whether on CD or uploaded FTP, they are still selling digital files..."

With only two posts, why are you coming down on Mark for supposedly still shooting film? I looked at your signature block and that told me all I needed to know about you. You have obviously been lurking for some time and I can't wait for you to say enough about yourself so that Mark can cut you down the same way you did to him.

I have a Mamiya 645AF Medium Format Camera along with about 90 rolls of 120/220 film. Am I also "Digitally Impaired"?

But, to move on and just to make clear...

Photojournalists are usually working for a company which makes their images "Work for Hire". Those that are not work for hire, to also include Sports Photographers, Ad, Stock Shooters (especially stock shooters) etc sell "LIMITED RIGHTS" of their images, not the files themselves. Ask Getty images to "sell" you a file and they'll laugh in your face.

Marks primary point, if I read him correctly, is to ask for as much money up front because customers like this are not worth persuing for small time cash on a long term basis. Live and let learn. And yes, seek better clientele and about the only way to do that is to raise your fees in order to get those customers who will actually value the work you provide them. Those are the one's who will treat you with respect by paying you on time and completely.

-Koa-

Mark -

Welcome to the "Bull's Eye" club.  You are right there with Koa, myself and a few others.

As usually happens, the seasoned photographers always get told that they don't know what they are talking about.   I don't sell images on CD unless I get paid, and paid VERY WELL for it.  Of course, I don't charge $35 for a sitting fee either, not even for a baby contest. 

I just have to wonder how many of those shooting today will be doing the same 20 years from now.

 Here's my 2 cents. I keep waiting for this to be addressed but it hasn't been.

"her mom has already paid, but I still haven't gotten the $35."

Her mom doesn't owe the $35. You owe her a CD. If the sitting fee wasn't paid that's between you and your client.

You should never accept money for something you're not going to sell. Either refund the mom her money or give her the CD.

The Old Man:

 Here's my 2 cents. I keep waiting for this to be addressed but it hasn't been.

"her mom has already paid, but I still haven't gotten the $35."

Her mom doesn't owe the $35. You owe her a CD. If the sitting fee wasn't paid that's between you and your client.

You should never accept money for something you're not going to sell. Either refund the mom her money or give her the CD.

 

 

+1 here.  Unless the girl is underage her mother is not responsible for her debts.  You made the mistake of being nice and doing the job without getting paid in advance - learn from that mistake and move on.

If you had not already taken the Mom's money then you might have been able to state that you can't sell any pictures until the sitting fee is paid for.....but you DID take her money - even if you have not cashed the check.

Ah! Battle of the siggies

"Great spirits often encounter violent opposition from mediocre minds." A. Einstein

Here to annoy you till you tell the truth.

Give the grandmom what she paid for, graciously.

Forget the $35. Consider it as a lesson in business that you only paid $35 for.

Drive on!

Dave

 

The Old Man:

 Here's my 2 cents. I keep waiting for this to be addressed but it hasn't been.

"her mom has already paid, but I still haven't gotten the $35."

Her mom doesn't owe the $35. You owe her a CD. If the sitting fee wasn't paid that's between you and your client.

You should never accept money for something you're not going to sell. Either refund the mom her money or give her the CD.

 

+2... or 3, or whatever we're on.

The Grandma doesn't owe the $35. 

Jules, count it as a lesson learned. Never continue with the photo shoot if they haven't paid the session fee (unless you were doing it for free in the first place ofcourse). She could have run to an ATM machine to get the cash. In this case, you did not insist on collecting the session fee up front. That honestly, is your fault. Since you went ahead with the photo shoot, you could have required the session fee to be paid before they could see the proofs or pay for an order. Again, in all honesty, that is your fault. What I can see happening is two things. The daughter never pays the session fee and you refuse to release the CD to the mother, who has paid for the CD and then you will need to refund the money to the mother, big headache and no profit. Or you can get the CD to the mother that she paid for and count the $35 session fee as a loss and you at least made the money from the CD, a lesson learned in business. Just learn from this mistake not to make it again. I suggest you start having your clients sign contracts and model releases if you aren't already as well.

Boriken Warrior:

Another item I need to mention is in regards to "The Truth". 

"Are you serious dude? I know you are "Digitally Impaired" but...ummm most Photojournalist, Sports Photographers, Ad, Stock shooters etc...sell Digital files, Whether on CD or uploaded FTP, they are still selling digital files..."

With only two posts, why are you coming down on Mark for supposedly still shooting film? I looked at your signature block and that told me all I needed to know about you. You have obviously been lurking for some time and I can't wait for you to say enough about yourself so that Mark can cut you down the same way you did to him.

I have a Mamiya 645AF Medium Format Camera along with about 90 rolls of 120/220 film. Am I also "Digitally Impaired"?

 

It's just because you didn't know what I was talking about and you didn't understand. The quote "Digitally Impaired" is from Mark's own website. It's his phrase, he would get it. And it was not a knock against film shooters. I have for 35 years. I have no problem with it.

And also what you didn't understand is, it's a digital file, I never said anything about the copyright, which Jules would still own, It's digital file that she gave the print rights too. Just like when you buy from Getty or Corbis. You get a digital file, which could be a pure digital or a drum scan of FILM, you're buying a digital file with the rights they have assigned to the purchaser. And for him to say he knows NO professional photographers that sell  them...well. Stop playing semantics and don't get all hurt.

yes all the seasoned pros, Tell the Truth

Actually, TT, that's not quite correct and apparently you don't quite understand how this business works at those levels you mentioned.  We don't sell the file, we sell the usage rights to the file, based on the terms and conditions set forth in a stock delivery memorandum or assignment confirmation invoice.  I do that alot but the image is digitized by my lab from film about 90 % of the time. The rest of the time, I shoot on digital equipment provided to me by the assignment editor. And unless it's work for hire and I agree to that in writing, I still own the rights to the images AND control who uses them for what and it's certainly not for unlimited use for the client to do with as they please when they please. IMO and insofar as I'm aware, that's just not a prudent way to do biz.  I should also note that I don't provide images on CD to the general public. I provide them to editors, designers, art-directors, corporate image people, etc.  People who are also professionals and understand the rights of usage and copyright rules.  Our relationships are, among other things, based upon trust. 

And IMO, one substantially diminishes or altogether loses their profits when they just give the work away like that. In the long run, "they" (those who do that) are NOT and cannot make what they should / could from a client because the photographer doesn't understand the value of their own work to the client.  I think once people understand that value, raise their prices accordingly, and stick to it, THEN they can start realizing a profit rather than dabbling in this business.

 

 

Howdy Koa !  As I told him, I think TT's problem, as many others starting out in this biz, is that he simply doesn't understand the value of the work or how people at other levels of the business handle use fees not sales of digital images, like USING them with specific agreements.  What I wonder is how many people who sell their work on CD's have any type of written contract with their end-users concerning how the images may be used, for what purposes, whether for profit or not, co-extensive usage.  I'll lay odds that would be very few.  The reason is because everyone tends to get wrapped up in shooting not the business end.  How many of them have a written business plan with a flexible marketing plan and pricing? 

Yes, one of my points is to get the money up front if you don't know the client and don't load a single pixel until you do.  But I should point out that years ago, we (NPPA) [National Press Photographers] and ASMP [American Assoc. of Media Photographers]  got into a real brawl with Associated Press for trying to cram work for hire agreements down our throats. They lost.  Now the work for hire agreements for freelancers are fewer and farther between. Most guys balk at them and for good reason, me included.  In fact, I won't sign them.  I own my own rights. My practice is that if I shoot an image for a large publication, for editorial use to illustrate a piece, if someone wants to use that image later to illustrate an ad, I first ask permission of the client I originally shot it for as a courtesy to them, not because I have to.  It saves a lot of hard feelings and misunderstandings that way.

BTW...how many folks on here really understand the copyright laws, as amended and are in favor of the widow/orphans modifications to copyright?   

Thread wise....deliver the CD and consider the $35 a lesson learned.

Side note:  Bullseye or not...there is so much to be learned from the newbies to the experienced.  I enjoy reading both sides...there's something to be learned from everyone.  Since this is the "Business Side" we should take all advice as just that advice...not a personal attack.  This is an opinion based profession, what works for one, may not work for you.  Use what works and move on.  Appreciate the knowledge everyone shares...their view won't always be like yours...we walk different paths

The Old Man:

 Here's my 2 cents. I keep waiting for this to be addressed but it hasn't been.

"her mom has already paid, but I still haven't gotten the $35."

Her mom doesn't owe the $35. You owe her a CD. If the sitting fee wasn't paid that's between you and your client.

You should never accept money for something you're not going to sell. Either refund the mom her money or give her the CD.

I agree.  I might go as far as to type up an "invoice" for the $35 and mail it to the daughter with a little note that says something about "hope you like your photos; please let me know if I may assist you in placing your order."  MAYBE you'll get the $35.  If not, I'd leave it at that.

The Truth:

And also what you didn't understand is, it's a digital file, I never said anything about the copyright, which Jules would still own, It's digital file that she gave the print rights too. Just like when you buy from Getty or Corbis. You get a digital file, which could be a pure digital or a drum scan of FILM, you're buying a digital file with the rights they have assigned to the purchaser. And for him to say he knows NO professional photographers that sell  them...well. Stop playing semantics and don't get all hurt.

The "truth" is...

Customers at this level know jack diddly about copyright laws nor do they care. As far as they are concerned, once they have the files, it is theirs to do as they please and that includes selling it to Coca-Cola for a multi million dollar ad campaign or even, "Gasp!", place it on a micro stock site and make money from it.

There are professional customers and there are amateur customers. This customer clearly falls into the amateur category and could not care a lick about copyright laws or that the photographer should, heaven forbid, want to eat.

Again, I am with Mark and the others. Get paid up front or do not do the job at all.

To get respect you have to earn and demand respect.

-Koa-

Boriken Warrior:

The "truth" is...

Customers at this level know jack diddly about copyright laws nor do they care. As far as they are concerned, once they have the files, it is theirs to do as they please and that includes selling it to Coca-Cola for a multi million dollar ad campaign or even, "Gasp!", place it on a micro stock site and make money from it.

There are professional customers and there are amateur customers. This customer clearly falls into the amateur category and could not care a lick about copyright laws or that the photographer should, heaven forbid, want to eat.

Again, I am with Mark and the others. Get paid up front or do not do the job at all.

To get respect you have to earn and demand respect.

-Koa-

 

OK KoKo (I'm playin with you little guy), You're not listening or understanding, The only point I was addressing was that Mark said, he has never heard of a Professional (Implying that Jules was not) selling Digital Files, It just simply done every day in the real NEW world. So if she did not sell the digital file on the CD the only other thing she could do is sell the customer prints. Which we all know could be scanned  and digitized and done with as the person pleases. Copyright laws do not stop anyone from copying anything, they only allow recourse should someone use them in a way in which they have no rights to.

And it actually is much easier to embed copyright information into digital file (yes I know it can be stripped out) but it is still much easier to embed that information into a digital file that an ordinary person may have no clue is even there. That little label you put on the back of the print, not so much

It's the only point I addressed. That Mark made it sound like it is NEVER done and she would be Unprofessionl if she did. Is just not what the real world is about now. If Weiden+Kenndy hired you to shoot a new Nike ad, you would give the agency a digtal file.

I never addressed whether what she charged a customer was correct or not, I don't really know what the parameters of her contest were.

But if you are a dinosaur you don't understand that and that markets do change. Take for instance. I like music, used to love browsing through bins in the Record store (showing age) and then CD stores. Really loved buying my music that way. Have you seen what has happened to CD stores? If it is not a digital download people don't want it. And did the Seasoned Professionals at the Record labels figure this out and acquiesce to the market? No it took Apple to figure that out and then the labels just fell in line with their tail between their legs. I still would rather go to a CD store, but I am kind of betting the CD store I open won't do so well.

And I am NOT saying that a small Portrait studio in a small town should only sell digital files. I may think print sales are still better. But I just don't hide my head in the sand and say when I was a Photographer 20 years ago this is the way we did it and it still should be done that way. It's not how markets work... And that's ...The Truth

And evidently TT doesn't understand the copyright laws either.  To be protected by the holder, Copyright (as a right granted by the U.S. Constitution) must be noticed by providing the basic information required by the statutes, AND it must be registered in a timely manner in order to be able to request judicial relief for infringement.  If you hand someone a disc of your work and say thanks for the $35 bucks, go enjoy, without more, you have essentially relinquished your right to seek damages for infringement and/or control use.  And btw, 20 years ago when we "did it" things worked quite well.  Of course we adopted to the market but TT isn't really addressing professional market standards. I think he's talking about hobby photographers trying to make extra bucks by wholesale sale of their work.  As far as hiding your head in the sand, TT, I don't know if it's in the sand or perhaps somewhere else?  <g>   I like to perouse used vinyl but alot of what I find on vinyl is rerecorded on CD. COPYRIGHTED CD  You're painting with a brush that's waaaaaay too broad here TT.