Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Gold Certified Leed project update
I just wanted to update a previous post. This project designed and owned by Herrington Architects that was hopefull of a Gold LEED Certification status has obtained the certification. I am happy to be able to bring the news to you. Congratulations Bruce Herrington and Staff.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The Copyright and licensing issue
There is one subject that often comes up when I am working with a new client - that is a misunderstanding of the licensing of photography. Photography is not sold - it is licensed. I'm no copyright attorney or even an expert on copyright law, so what I write here is just a basic understanding of what the ASMP and the US Copyright office websites have taught me about running a fair and professional business practice.
According to copyright law any photographer who takes a picture is the owner of that intellectual property. Anyone who wants to use the photograph needs to gain permission or obtain a license to use it. That seems simple. However, there is a very big misconception. Many think if they hire you to photograph a project, they own the copyright and can do anything they want with the pictures. The truth is, according to copyright law the photographer owns the photograph as intellectual property when he/she takes the picture. It doesn't matter if the photographer is a professional or an amateur. Nor does it matter if the photograph is good or bad. The photograph is automatically copyrighted to the person who took it.
In order for the company or person who hires the photographer to own the copyright, a situation known as "work made for hire" would need to exist. This has to be done under certain circumstances and is a little complicated. I have attached a link for you to read about this. It seems the hiring party must regard the photographer as a W-2 employee for this to be valid - the employer must do the scheduling, pay the taxes and FICA, cover the photographer for liability and workers comp, offer benefits, provide the equipment necessary for the work to be done and basically claim the photographer as an employee. Both parties must also understand and sign the "work made for hire" agreement.
Assignment or custom photography is quite different. The client contracts a photographer for an assignment. The photographer then charges for the assignment and the licensing of the photographs according to how they will be used. This is how commercial photographers make a living - by licensing the rights to use their photographs. The charge for the assignment (known as the creative fee plus expenses) is for time, equipment, expertise and other business expenses like liability insurance, transportation, assistants, prop rentals and other expenses. The hiring party usually pays for these along with licensing. Sometimes other parties involved in the project share in the cost of the assignment plus additional fees for their own licensing. Each party gets its own license for its particular use. Typically the architect and contractor use the photographs similarly but the building owner may have other ideas of how they want to use the images. Each party should negotiate their own individual needs with the photographer.
The "copyright transfer" is used when the artist transfers a copyright outright to another party. Such a transfer can be very expensive for the buyer.
With stock photography, existing photography is bought for a particular use. Magazines and ad firms make common use of stock photos. The stock photography business has been overrun with photography by amateurs who are willing to practically give their work away because they don't realize the value of it and don't depend on that income for a living. Licensing this kind of photography can range from $1 royalty-free images to very expensive high end stock photography with specific usage rights. It can be said that many amateurs are quite good. However no one is likely to find stock photography of a just completed building to suit their own individual needs.
The truth is most companies ( architectural firms, for example) which hire an assignment photographer need the photographs for only a limited use and have no real reason to pay for excess usage they would never need. Any specialty photographer has invested much time in developing their art not to mention a sizable investment in expensive equipment. It is also worth noting that the process of taking the image from concept to delivery is very time consuming. To state it plainly, the photographer deserves to be paid for his/her time and expertise.
The ASMP and AIA have worked together to create a document titled Working with an Architectural Photographer to help create a better understanding of the agreement drawn between a photographer's art and the client's needs. It addresses everything both photographer and client should know and understand when doing business together. I personally refer to it often and make it a habit to give it to new clients to give them a better understanding of the way I do business. I think it is good for everyone to be on the same page from the beginning.
I recently read, on the AIA website, the fifth installment of a six part article called Copyright or Copy Wrong. I think it is a very much a worthwhile read, along with the rest of the series.
I hope this short write-up sheds some light on the concept of licensing photography. I try to learn something new everyday. And when I do, I like to pass it on.
Until next time...
According to copyright law any photographer who takes a picture is the owner of that intellectual property. Anyone who wants to use the photograph needs to gain permission or obtain a license to use it. That seems simple. However, there is a very big misconception. Many think if they hire you to photograph a project, they own the copyright and can do anything they want with the pictures. The truth is, according to copyright law the photographer owns the photograph as intellectual property when he/she takes the picture. It doesn't matter if the photographer is a professional or an amateur. Nor does it matter if the photograph is good or bad. The photograph is automatically copyrighted to the person who took it.
In order for the company or person who hires the photographer to own the copyright, a situation known as "work made for hire" would need to exist. This has to be done under certain circumstances and is a little complicated. I have attached a link for you to read about this. It seems the hiring party must regard the photographer as a W-2 employee for this to be valid - the employer must do the scheduling, pay the taxes and FICA, cover the photographer for liability and workers comp, offer benefits, provide the equipment necessary for the work to be done and basically claim the photographer as an employee. Both parties must also understand and sign the "work made for hire" agreement.
Assignment or custom photography is quite different. The client contracts a photographer for an assignment. The photographer then charges for the assignment and the licensing of the photographs according to how they will be used. This is how commercial photographers make a living - by licensing the rights to use their photographs. The charge for the assignment (known as the creative fee plus expenses) is for time, equipment, expertise and other business expenses like liability insurance, transportation, assistants, prop rentals and other expenses. The hiring party usually pays for these along with licensing. Sometimes other parties involved in the project share in the cost of the assignment plus additional fees for their own licensing. Each party gets its own license for its particular use. Typically the architect and contractor use the photographs similarly but the building owner may have other ideas of how they want to use the images. Each party should negotiate their own individual needs with the photographer.
The "copyright transfer" is used when the artist transfers a copyright outright to another party. Such a transfer can be very expensive for the buyer.
With stock photography, existing photography is bought for a particular use. Magazines and ad firms make common use of stock photos. The stock photography business has been overrun with photography by amateurs who are willing to practically give their work away because they don't realize the value of it and don't depend on that income for a living. Licensing this kind of photography can range from $1 royalty-free images to very expensive high end stock photography with specific usage rights. It can be said that many amateurs are quite good. However no one is likely to find stock photography of a just completed building to suit their own individual needs.
The truth is most companies ( architectural firms, for example) which hire an assignment photographer need the photographs for only a limited use and have no real reason to pay for excess usage they would never need. Any specialty photographer has invested much time in developing their art not to mention a sizable investment in expensive equipment. It is also worth noting that the process of taking the image from concept to delivery is very time consuming. To state it plainly, the photographer deserves to be paid for his/her time and expertise.
The ASMP and AIA have worked together to create a document titled Working with an Architectural Photographer to help create a better understanding of the agreement drawn between a photographer's art and the client's needs. It addresses everything both photographer and client should know and understand when doing business together. I personally refer to it often and make it a habit to give it to new clients to give them a better understanding of the way I do business. I think it is good for everyone to be on the same page from the beginning.
I recently read, on the AIA website, the fifth installment of a six part article called Copyright or Copy Wrong. I think it is a very much a worthwhile read, along with the rest of the series.
I hope this short write-up sheds some light on the concept of licensing photography. I try to learn something new everyday. And when I do, I like to pass it on.
Until next time...
Time Lapse Photography
I am posting this video of things I have shot around Birmingham. It has both time lapse photography as well as stills. It is a around six minutes but I think it might be interesting.
Evocacion from Sherwood Cox on Vimeo.
Post a comment and let me know what you think.
Until next time...
Evocacion from Sherwood Cox on Vimeo.
Post a comment and let me know what you think.
Until next time...
Friday, April 9, 2010
Creating a dramatic night shot
In this post I'm going to go into the work it takes to get a night shot that is dramatic and compelling. It's not work for the faint of heart or someone trying to get an easy picture. But then nothing worth anything comes easy. All photo's in this blog are copyrighted to Sherwood Cox. Contact me for licensing.
My two assistants and I got started on this at about 1:30 AM. We had just finished two interior shots that we started at about 7 PM and started moving our gear outside. They took about 3 hours each.
I had already picked the composition for the shot
on an earlier visit. I knew where I wanted to shoot from and what lens to use. I got a couple of shots for composition and to get the exposure right for the interior and built in architectural lights.
This is what it looked like before we lit the scene.
After 4 hours of setting up more that 50 lights of different sizes and wattage along with more that 500 feet of extension cords and countless spitters we ended up with this. This was shot at the same settings and exposure as the first shot. Still far from a nice photo.
Then as my assistants picked up and packed everything away while I waited to shoot the sky as the sun started to rise. Later once I was back home after this 4 day assignment I spent about 6 hours in post production on this one picture taking out all of the lights and extension cords we couldn't hide along with a multitude of other things like putting in the sky. This was the final photo.
To me, well worth the effort!
See you next time...
My two assistants and I got started on this at about 1:30 AM. We had just finished two interior shots that we started at about 7 PM and started moving our gear outside. They took about 3 hours each.
I had already picked the composition for the shot
on an earlier visit. I knew where I wanted to shoot from and what lens to use. I got a couple of shots for composition and to get the exposure right for the interior and built in architectural lights.
This is what it looked like before we lit the scene.
After 4 hours of setting up more that 50 lights of different sizes and wattage along with more that 500 feet of extension cords and countless spitters we ended up with this. This was shot at the same settings and exposure as the first shot. Still far from a nice photo.
Then as my assistants picked up and packed everything away while I waited to shoot the sky as the sun started to rise. Later once I was back home after this 4 day assignment I spent about 6 hours in post production on this one picture taking out all of the lights and extension cords we couldn't hide along with a multitude of other things like putting in the sky. This was the final photo.
To me, well worth the effort!
See you next time...
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Professional vs Amateur Photographers
There is a lot of buzz in the professional photography world about part time photographers taking work away from professionals. There has always been an element of amateurs and wanna be's selling their work for a fraction of the professional's price. It's easy for someone who has a full time career and doesn't rely on photography for a living to do this. The amateur might not have thought out a business model to figure out what they would need to charge to make a living and keep up with equipment, liability insurance, etc... so they could devote full time to their art instead of just being able to do it when they have time. Many amateurs also might not understand the value of their work. Editors and photo buyers are quick to take advantage of this. This saves the photo buyers money but undercuts the professional's living. Some amateur photographers are quite good and sometimes the photo buyer just doesn't see the value in what their usual professional photographer gives them. (All photography on this blog is copyrighted to Sherwood Cox. Please contact Sherwood for proper licensing.)
As a professional photographer I strive to always make sure my clients receive photography with value. I also take steps to protect the value of their investment. I do this by creating photography the uninitiated or inexperienced usually will not and cannot provide with their experience level, time constraints and capital invested in their hobby. I also try to set myself apart from other professionals with my own unique style. I make sure to copyright and protect the copyright of the photographs I create on assignment. Another way I protect the value of my clients investment is to make sure any others who might also want to license the use of them pay a more expensive stock rate for the work if they did not participate in the original assignment. I would hate for one of my clients to think they had to pay for something when someone else got it for free or paid less.
My clients usually hire me for photographs to help them market themselves and show their work in design awards. Whenever another party wants to license any of the photos they need to contact me for acquiring this. Sometimes editors want to use tthe photos for editorials. Sometimes the building owner wants to use some of the photos for PR or personal use. Sometimes manufacturers want to use them in their advertising. Whatever their need I try to make sure the architect isn't put in the middle. Other parties usually contact the architect who hired the photographer because they see the photographs on their website or the architects show the photos around to show pride in their work. I always tell my clients to pass on any requests they receive to me so they don't have to negotiate the third party's fees to license the photos. I'm sure my clients have enough to do for themselves without having to negotiate for another business.
After shooting a recent assignment for one of my clients I received an e-mail from a lighting manufacturer in Italy who wanted to use one of the shots on their website and in their print catalogue. They wanted to license the photo for a photo credit. Since it's hard to fill up my car or grocery shop with a photo credit I politely gave them an offer. After all a for profit company who is using photography to help them make a profit should have an advertising budget. They countered with a much lower offer and said they only pay this much for photography and wanted unlimited use. I countered with my best offer according to their intended use with limitations. I never heard from them again. After looking at their website I saw they had professional studio photography of their different models of lights. They also had photography of installations of their products. Some looked professional but most looked amateurish and some looked like they were taken with cellphones. I guess this is where they were looking to use this picture along with their international catalogue. I would have accepted a smaller fee for a small picture practically lost on their website but I couldn't let them print internationally distributed catalogues with my work for almost nothing. Good stock photography isn't cheap. Try licensing a photo from Getty Images. I do love the lighting and installation which Williams & Blackstock Architects did but I couldn't bring myself to give away my work. I think it has more value than that.
The amateur photographer has turned photography into a commodity for some buyers. But this is an art form not a commodity. Just as the architect carefully and artfully creates usable space that can be a delight to the senses so should the architectural photographer spend the same time and care in photographing the space in a unique and dramatic way. A single well done and carefully prepared photograph from an experienced and motivated professional with a passion for architectural photography can do much more to get attention than a plethora of quickly done pictures from the inexperienced or unmotivated. This is what brings value to assignment photography. Quality not quantity.
See you next time were I'll show how much work goes into a shot like this...
My clients usually hire me for photographs to help them market themselves and show their work in design awards. Whenever another party wants to license any of the photos they need to contact me for acquiring this. Sometimes editors want to use tthe photos for editorials. Sometimes the building owner wants to use some of the photos for PR or personal use. Sometimes manufacturers want to use them in their advertising. Whatever their need I try to make sure the architect isn't put in the middle. Other parties usually contact the architect who hired the photographer because they see the photographs on their website or the architects show the photos around to show pride in their work. I always tell my clients to pass on any requests they receive to me so they don't have to negotiate the third party's fees to license the photos. I'm sure my clients have enough to do for themselves without having to negotiate for another business.
The amateur photographer has turned photography into a commodity for some buyers. But this is an art form not a commodity. Just as the architect carefully and artfully creates usable space that can be a delight to the senses so should the architectural photographer spend the same time and care in photographing the space in a unique and dramatic way. A single well done and carefully prepared photograph from an experienced and motivated professional with a passion for architectural photography can do much more to get attention than a plethora of quickly done pictures from the inexperienced or unmotivated. This is what brings value to assignment photography. Quality not quantity.
See you next time were I'll show how much work goes into a shot like this...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
