Freelance Rates and Copyright

[Warren Toda]

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.

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.

[Moe Doiron]

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.

[Warren Toda]

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. 



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.

[Amber Bracken]

@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.