NPAC Forums
NPAC Forum => General Discussion => Topic started by: Jimmy Jeong on March 11, 2015, 09:31 AM
-
Ok, sorry for bringing up this touchy subject. Is it time that we had a serious discussion about this? I understand that budgets are tight and our industry is trying to find solutions but if staff photography positions are being eliminated then we need to get a better handle of our new realities.
My first suggestion: Should NPAC have a preferred rate and copyright guideline for clients seeking to hire freelancers?
Please keep comments in check and respect all our members.
—Jimmy
-
I think a preferred rate would be great.
This could be a researched set of rates that could be used as a base when working in freelance work in a Canadian editorial market. NPAC could endorse these rates and inform a variety of publications and clients about the 'recommended' rate.
How would you like to see this rate be calculated? A mean of all current rates?
Let hear what you have to say....
Ben
-
The silence is a bit deafening here.
Words like 'preferred' worry me when the are not defined. Obviously I would love it if editors paid me more because I'm an NPAC member, but I honestly don't think the organization has that kind of clout. Am I alone here? This is a very difficult thing that you are proposing.
Also, every publication has a different copyright policy that often isn't crafted in the newsroom.
Kudos are due if NPAC pursues this, but colour me skeptical. Since no others have piped up, I would assume the sentiment doesn't just lie with me. Good luck.
-
Blair: Good points.
I don't think having these rates solely for NPAC members is what we would be going for. This would be a reference that any new freelancer could look to for guidance. What about a list of clients that meet the 'NPAC' recommended rate and ultimately, a list of clients that don't?
The rates and information could be supplied to the photographers/videographers AND to the clients themselves. This could be a foundation and something to grow off of, even if this organization is viewed as having little influence now.
-
I think this could be a good thing. Even if all it does is serve to show Newbies what their minimum rates should be. Might help someone from getting taken advantage of.
-
Great idea. But it should also have some idea of coverage for mileage and expenses. I know that's rare in most urban areas where shooters are more common, but I cover an area that is 250 to 300 kilometres wide(one way) west, north and east. (I'd go south as well but that would be by boat and given the charter costs here completely unlikely ;D ) I will say that almost all the media who are represented on NPAC have covered my mileage (sometimes on a cost share between 2 clients) on long distance assignments, but there are handful of others who won't, including one who expected me to drive from Kitimat to Prince Rupert two to three hours drive depending on weather each way with no mileage coverage. I politely declined.
-
Great initiative, I think this is a really important conversation.
I'm not totally clear on what "preferred rates" are either, can you offer a definition?
How would we proceed? Where would we get the numbers from? Would freelancers be willing to submit (even anonymously) what they are getting for different jobs? And some of the accepted rates are so unsustainable, I wouldn't even want them used in a calculation.
I really like tools like this https://nppa.org/calculator (https://nppa.org/calculator) for making the conversation more realistic and facts based.
-
I know that this is a tough topic to tackle, and it's hard not to be skeptical. I'm not expecting overnight change but instead I hope the profession (which includes all levels from freelancer, staffer to photo editor) will help shift the mindset that freelancers are a cheap throw-away commodity. Freelancers are a valuable resource for publications and are hired to fill gaps in staffing, for their locations, and for their talent. Not because they are cheaper than keeping staff.
Now, these are just some thoughts (not NPAC saying this but just me):
Mileage needs to be tied to government mileage rates.
Work-for-hire copyright grabs is no longer the default. In fact legally, photographers own the rights to their copyright and must be properly compensated if a publication wants it all. Really, do they need to own it all in perpetuity. I am in support of the shared-rights policies that some publications have. On this point, I do think wires need a different discussion here.
All expenses must be paid by the publication.
In terms of actual rates, maybe we need to collect data first on what publications charge in Canada. And we can compare those rates to industry rates in other countries. But I do believe these rates need to be tied to inflation. I hate hearing about how some place have had the same rate for the last 15 years.
Ok, these are just here for discussion. Maybe we can get put a board together to hammer out some real policies and future direction.
Best,
Jimmy
-
Sorry to be a downer but the reality is that rates, mileage, inflation index increases and even copyright waiving are all dictated by the client and the market, not the vendors.
Individual freelancers can set and ask for an expected rate for assignments but the client will have the final say if they get hired or not. Maybe some room for negotiation but rarely. If it's a rights thing chances are they will just not hire you if you don't agree.
Media revenues across the board are dropping, which means their operating budgets are too. Don't expect a raise any time soon since for the most part today’s pay scale and rate system is not sustainable under the current and future market. That's why you're seeing new job classifications at lower pay scales being established all over the print media workplace.
That said it's good to set guidelines however these will be by individual and not controlled by a group or collective. You decide if it's worth your time, the client will move on if you say no.
I know A-list freelancers who will work for less money simply because it's a high-profile client. I also know many photographers who you think won't leave their house for less than $$$ will leave their house for far less than $$$ if you ask them.
Finally not all freelancers get the same rate, even from the same client, so there is no minimum, and for that matter no maximum in special cases. Compare rates at your own risk.
-
(I am currently working on a writing and photo project on First Nations customary copyright so I have been researching the subject)
Jimmy..... an individual copyright under the Act is the life of the creator plus 50 years after death, which is pretty standard world wide, except in the US where it can be 75 years.
Perpetuity. I know a lot of clients these days demand rights in perpetuity. In the world's first major copyright trial Donaldson v Becket, 1774, in Britain's House of Lords, the justices ruled against any form of rights in perpetuity, in favour of a fixed term set by the legislature, in 1774 it was 14 years with one renewal and would have applied in what became both Canada and the US. ( So today the fixed term is life + 50). Because it was two years before the American revolution and was later upheld by the US Supreme Court, technically it still applies in all Common Law countries. Technically, "some conditions apply." On the other hand, as Moe says, these days the client usually has the final say in the hiring negotiation, which is why we get so many demands for perpetuity these days.
Oh and on the prospective one time client who wouldn't pay my mileage for a 500 k round trip, the fee wouldn't have barely covered the costs of the trip, so it wasn't worth it. Nor, as Moe points out, was this client, that prestigious.
-
I'm with Moe on this, the budgets are so tight that if you hold out for more money, they're just going to start handing out iPhones to the reporters and calling it good enough.
Copyright for newspaper freelancers is important to hold on to. I've made lots re-selling images (most which never made it to the paper) to the local municipality and to some of the commercial people I get assigned to cover.
-
Alright, some great points made so far. Maybe we should first look at what industry rates are like across the country.
I do agree with Moe, that sometimes you can negotiate a rate with the publication you string for. I know back in Edmonton, all the freelancers met with the photo editor of a major daily and we had a cordial discussion. The rates were quite low and had been the same for at least a decade. It was a great meeting, the photo editor even paid for lunch. A week later, our rates went up substantially. Now keep in mind this was over ten years ago.
Now don't get me wrong, I understand our industry is facing major obstacles. I'm not trying to be an (deleted word) and cause trouble. I deeply love shooting editorial assignments. I think we all want to find a way to survive.
-
I think another thing that needs to be discussed is non-editorial rates literacy. Unless you are the main stringer for a wire, I don't know a lot of editorial freelancers that survive on 100% editorial work. The pool just isn't deep enough. I know this is news photographers association and I'm not advocating an exodus: I'm with Jimmy, I love editorial and I'd do almost anything to stay here. But an educational rates framework of what to expect for different kinds of work could be really helpful for freelancers trying to keep afloat and avoid driving down rates in another sector.
-
I'd also like to point out that money does not drive my interest in this field or this conversation. I, like most of you, wouldn't be standing here if I didn't love the privilege of being a story teller.
What does drive my interest is the ability to continue to do this professionally and hopefully not be a destitute old lady when its all said and done. And I think it's in the interest of staffers, freelancers, editors, writers and publishers, to have the resource of skilled and caring photojournalists. We know the alternative isn't really an alternative, its a collapse.
-
I love editorial work too, but sometimes it can be financial struggle. I'm working for three different newspaper (all owned by the same media company), each of which produce several editorial supplements and magazines, and it still really only amounts to a pretty good part time job. That works out well for me, as they give me a lot of room for me to do my commercial work, which makes up 70% of my income, despite being about 30% of the work I do. The editorial covers my basic expenses, which means that if I have a couple of quiet months commercially, I'm not digging into my savings to pay my phone bill.
It's critical for freelancers to also do commercial work as well as editorial, otherwise it's impossible to get by. That's something we should be drilling into students.
-
Unless you are the main stringer for a wire, I don't know a lot of editorial freelancers that survive on 100% editorial work. The pool just isn't deep enough. I know this is news photographers association and I'm not advocating an exodus: I'm with Jimmy, I love editorial and I'd do almost anything to stay here.
If you do the math, you can NOT make a living freelancing only for newspapers/wires. You need to make ~$350/day for at least 270 days per year to equal what the average staffer photographer earns (salary+gear+car+benefits). And $350 x 270 from one or two clients will not happen, otherwise the provincial labour ministry will be asking questions. By the way, the average staffer works less than 230 days per year, so you would have to do $410 x 230 days per year to match that and no paper in the country routinely pays $410.
This brings up another issue: newspapers/wires that depend on freelancers 364 days per year and which could not function without these freelancers. I'm not blaming photo depts. since they don't make these decisions, but publishers are skirting labour laws here, not to mention killing local jobs. It's wonderfully ironic how newspapers report and editorialize about other businesses killing off local jobs, offshoring jobs, etc. and yet newspapers continue on the exact same path.
I'd also like to point out that money does not drive my interest in this field or this conversation. I, like most of you, wouldn't be standing here if I didn't love the privilege of being a story teller.
What does drive my interest is the ability to continue to do this professionally and hopefully not be a destitute old lady when its all said and done. And I think it's in the interest of staffers, freelancers, editors, writers and publishers, to have the resource of skilled and caring photojournalists. We know the alternative isn't really an alternative, its a collapse.
I think you speak for all of us. This situation applies not just to photographers but also to musicians, painters, writers, actors and others in the "creative field." It's crazy that the most desired content (eg. photos and music) is also the lowest financially rewarded. Just as the world would be a sad place without music, think how uninformed people would be without news/editorial photos.
I would love to see one day where no pictures are published in any newspaper or news web site. Just one day.
If you want someone to blame, then blame the guy who invented digital cameras. Before digital, few folks understood follow focusing, exposure, flash, darkrooms, etc. Digital technology and other computer advancements have eliminated all of that. The problem is that many people, many of whom should know better, think that good photography and good photojournalism are now just a button click away.
The saying is that change is always for the better. Of course, this is wrong. I'm not saying we should go back to the horse and buggy or the film and chemical days, but only good change is for the better.
Technology and other digital changes over the past ~25 years have been fantastic. But for some reason, technology has, in both people and companies, changed their values. And this is the problem.
The saying is that when the tide goes out, you can see who was swimming naked. That certainly applies (applied) to newspaper publishers who had incredible profits during the 1970s-1980s, in spite of themselves, and then saw their businesses start to fail in the late 90s and had no idea what to do.
Many businesses, including large corporate newspapers, chase only the money. Technology helps them chase faster. The problem is that everything has changed over the past two decades. It's no longer about chasing numbers, eyeballs or money. It's about connecting with people, one person at a time. Technology can help you connect faster although it's inherently a slow process. Few newspapers understand this.
How do you connect? Through shared emotion.
You know where this is going.
Photography = emotion.
And speaking of pricing, copyright, etc.
It's not possible to have a set of national "preferred rates". Fotoquote and Blinkbid each publish historical or "suggested" rates that seem to have some following in the US. But unless a majority of photographers play along, it won't work.
Note that every camera and lens are sold at virtually the same prices at every camera store across the country. Most stores have similar overheads, so they charge similar prices.
Many photographers have similar overheads, too. Yet some photographers will price jobs wildly apart. Last week, I quoted about $2,000 for a headshot to be used on billboards for two years, plus web site use. Apparently another photographer got the job for $250. This photographer lost money on the job and obviously has no clue about it.
It might be possible to create "preferred rates" with individual publications, on a case by case basis. But if you look at what is/was done with Forbes in the US and also with a few US companies (for advertising photography), you'll see that photographers negotiated a preferred contract not a preferred price. These agreements left only the photographer's fee open to individual negotiation and then standardized everything else (reuse, resales, copyright, etc.)
I'm with Moe on this, the budgets are so tight that if you hold out for more money, they're just going to start handing out iPhones to the reporters and calling it good enough.
True but photographers have to learn to say "no thanks" and walk away from a job. Or maybe say, "$100? Sure! I'll shoot on my iPhone and e-mail it to you."
I got a call from a mid-sized US paper and their offer was US$125. I asked for CAD$350. The assistant photo editor checked with her boss and the paper paid agreed to pay US$275. Took less than 1 minute to get the higher rate.
I know two Toronto newspapers who upped their assignment rate to $700 and $800 because they really wanted a job shot (in the USA by US photographers).
I think another thing that needs to be discussed is non-editorial rates literacy..... But an educational rates framework of what to expect for different kinds of work could be really helpful for freelancers trying to keep afloat and avoid driving down rates in another sector.
Start by charging at least triple of what a newspaper would pay. :D
Sadly, many photographers don't have a clue about business. Just because you got a cheque for $1,000 that doesn't necessarily mean you made any money.
-
I know two Toronto newspapers who upped their assignment rate to $700 and $800 because they really wanted a job shot (in the USA by US photographers).
I doubt this was applied as an "assignment rate", unless you consider the "assignment" a story that is shot over a couple of days, covers related expenses or incorporates previously shot work that the photographer has available for the story. It wasn't me that's for certain, not for a 3-hr local shoot and file. I'm not sure I believe that unless there were special circumstances missing from the context.
But for photo stories I do this all the time, even here in Canada with Canadian photographers. I get pitched wonderful stories, I make an assessment on what went into it, how we'll use it and what value it is to readers. I've paid way more than that when all those elements add up or if I'm developing a relationship with a photographer that I'd like to see more work from.
-
I doubt this was applied as an "assignment rate", unless you consider the "assignment" a story that is shot over a couple of days, covers related expenses or incorporates previously shot work that the photographer has available for the story. It wasn't me that's for certain, not for a 3-hr local shoot and file. I'm not sure I believe that unless there were special circumstances missing from the context.
Nope, a single day assignment (maybe even less), no expenses except mileage, and deadline was 1/2 or 1 day away (in 2011/2012). The only "catch" was that both jobs (portraits of someone) were in a smaller city/town and I guess few photographers were in those areas. The photographers were smart enough to negotiate a higher price because they probably knew they were the only game in town and that this was a one-time thing.
I can recall times when a paper would call a local wedding photographer and ask them to shoot a news job because the paper couldn't find any other photog in the area.
Last year, I got a request from South America to shoot something in Edmonton. But once I gave them a price for airfare and hotel, they decided against it. :)
Also once got a morning e-mail from Europe asking me to shoot an early afternoon press conference in Shawinigan, Quebec. I mentioned that it would take ~10 hours to drive there. The editor replied that it didn't look that far on a map. :D
Added:
Moe, you said that you might pay more to a photographer from whom you'd like to see more work. That works the other way around, too. A photographer might charge a lower rate to a company for which they'd like to do more work.
-
@Moe you can play the hard ass all you want but we all know you're one of the good guys. The Globe and Mail has the fairest standard newspaper rates around hands down.
Your input is valuable, thanks for chiming in.
@Warren thanks for always having the break down for us.