Weird Question About Price and Models

[Alexius M Deters]

Is it normal for an advertising agency to pay you $X amount per photo used and ($X times 3) to the model/talent that appears in the photo. In other words they will give me 1/3 of what the person in the photo is getting.

Alex

[Alexius M Deters]

So SAG (Screen Actors Guild) Union requires that the minimum the talent recieves is 3 times what I get.

Theoretically if there are 5 drivers in this photo and they pay each driver $3 thats $15 for that one photo and I only see $1 out of that....

[John Thawley]

I have NO idea what you're talking about. I'm not aware of any drivers carrying SAG cards. LOL

[Alexius M Deters]

LOL

These photos in question would be used in a video advertisement produced for a very large company. They've given me a price they're willing to pay per photo. They've also disclosed the price they pay for the person in question in the photo to appear in the ad which is 3 times the amount being paid for the photo. Apparently they have to follow SAG Union rules or they get fined. Which means that's the minimum they pay for a model.

I give them the drivers' name and they contact them and get a model release from them. The drivers are easily identifiable which is not as common in most motor sports. I'm just a bit confused and not sure what to do.

Hope this clears things up.

[Todd Corzett]

Is it normal for an advertising agency to pay you $X amount per photo used and ($X times 3) to the model/talent that appears in the photo. In other words they will give me 1/3 of what the person in the photo is getting.
Does it really matter?

1) If you are getting paid a fair price for your work, and are happy with what you are making, does it matter that the model is making more?

2) If you're not happy about what you they are planning to pay you, then charge more. You may even be able to use the "you are paying the model $XXX, so I know your budget isn't small" line.

In all reality, what is selling the photo? Is it because of something you created and that is unique to you, or is it because they people are in it? If it's because of the people (example being a bunch of the top NASCAR drivers) then there is no reason why they shouldn't be paid WAY more than the photographer (not to say that the photographer shouldn't get paid fairly - in the NASCAR example I'd guess quite a bit of money too). For most photos I'd say it's a mix of the two... if the people are 3x more important than the photographer, then they should get 3x the $$$.

-Todd...

PS – Like JT, I’ve never heard of this one either. Bottom line, make sure you are getting paid what you think is a fair deal. Let the client worry about paying the models. If they want you to shoot it, and you charge $$$, if they want you (and by some guild have to pay the models 3x more) then they will pay what they have to pay to get you to shoot it.

[Alexius M Deters]

Thanks for the replies...

I just wasn't sure if this is normal or anything like that. Thanks for the NASCAR analogy, lol. I think what irks me is that these people in the photos are pretty much unknown people. What's selling the photo is not the person in the photo. It's more the event taking place in the photo, regardless of who the person is.

Interesting though, we'll see how many photos they want to use. Ill get back to you and disclose more information if I can... It's a cool ad and would definitely be "cool" to be a part of it, however I am willing to turn it down if its not fair. I'm so used to people wanting stuff for free and giving credit, and credit doesn't put food on my plate.

A

[Dennis Murray]

Your rates are your rates....if they have to pay out to the "talent" in the photos, not your issue.

[Mike Ditz]

It shows how the unions can sometimes negotiate a better deal than an individual photogrpaher.
If the company is a SAG signatory then they run the chance of getting fined for using non union talent in a producttion. This only (usually?) applies to motion picture / commercial work not still photography but if the pix are part of a MP production using union talent then they pay what they they have to pay. It also seems to me that if they are SAG they would also be IATSE (or whoever it is that deals with camera folks) and they are using you (a non union guy taking the food out of the mouths of starving union children) on a union shoot.

Many models/actors/crew are union but it doesn't (usually) apply for photos.

You made your deal and the 'talent' made their deal. Is it really any of your busiiness what they are paying the talent/drivers or the caterer or anybody else?

[Alexius M Deters]

Well one of the reasons I posted this up was because I panicked. I kinda had this gut feeling like I was being taken advantage of. So finding out more on what is being used and working with the client it's definitely fair.

Thanks for the input though. These photos have already been taken and they're purchasing them as stock so-to-say. It will appear in a television commercial thus the SAG references.