Pricing a very short video, for website use, simply featuring a product being used?

D

DHart

Member
I have been a professional photographer for many years, but only recently have I ventured into the world of motion image creation.

I have a commercial client for whom I have created a number of still images in the past. They make a small hand-held product. For still product images, typically I would charge a rate for image creation, $600 half-day, $1125 full-day, and a charge per-image fee depending on the number of images selected and usage.

This client has asked me to create a short video, about 1 minute in duration, simply showing the product in the hands of a consumer user and some "fly over" images of the product itself. Pretty simple. The video would appear on their website along with a variety of still images.

How would you price creating such a video for the client?

Shooting and editing fees (based on hourly rates), plus a usage fee?

I think my time involved would be about 1/2 day shooting and probably a day, to a day and a half editing.

Should there be a usage fee/licensing fee for the finished product as well?

What's a reasonable hourly rate for video editing?

Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Charge em what your worth. hd half day shooting 700, or 1300 for full. Not sure what you mean by usage fee?

Editing rates can go from 50-125/hour. Don't forget to factor in encoding as well, dvd burns etc. Budget for revisions and give em a couple hours included, then bill them hourly if they want to play Spielberg in the editing bay.
 
Last edited:
Paunch... thank you for the reply... I would have thought more people here are knowledgeable about pricing issues, but perhaps not. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
 
actually there are a bunch of great threads in the business section, search for "how much to charge" or "day rates" and you'll find a bunch of great info amigo.
 
It is rare in a work for hire in video to charge an additional useage fee or license. The original bid assumes that and the person hiring owns the video. This is different than what has been the norm in photography.
 
MichaelP said:
It is rare in a work for hire in video to charge an additional useage fee or license. The original bid assumes that and the person hiring owns the video. This is different than what has been the norm in photography.
Click to expand...
Except that hiring an independent contractor to shoot and produce video does not automatically make the resulting video a work-for-hire since the contractor is not an employee of the client. This is as true for video as it is for still photography. Copyright on a copyrightable work belongs to the author of the work by default and the law does not distinguish between still and moving images in that regard. Of course the videographer and his client are free to negotiate a work-for-hire contract if they choose to do so but unless it has been spelled out in writing PRIOR to commencement of work that the resulting product will be considered a work-for-hire, the copyright on the resulting video remnains the property of the producer and does not become the property of the client. The videographer can certainly transfer copyright to the client, perhaps upon payment of the fee in full, but such transfers of copyright again must be in writing according to statute, it must be an explicit transfer, not merely assumed in the bid or resulting engagement agreement. Copyright going to the client CANNOT, by law, ever be assumed.

Xerox revolutionized the business of office equipment sales by basing their copier prices not so much on their manufacturing or R&D costs but rather on the value to the customer's business of having the actual copies that the machines made. Viewed in that light, 30 seconds of video used in a national ad campaign is worth far more than if that same piece of video was used in a new employee orientation program. By retaining the copyright and charging based on usage the producer can get paid on the actual economic worth to the client of his output rather than merely gathering what is effectively an hourly wage for his time.
 
Last edited:
Steve,

You are 100% correct. We had this thread last week. It amazes me how people on this forum are in such a hurry to give up their rights to the video they have produced.
 
Rough rule of thumb, video rates are starting at $1,000/finished minute. Basic quality. Rates go up with more time and equipment needed, so you are in the ball park.

I've never retained the rights to anything I've shot. That just makes no sense to me. If I were to try and pull something like that, it's an invitation to never be hired back again.
 
j said:
...
I've never retained the rights to anything I've shot. That just makes no sense to me. If I were to try and pull something like that, it's an invitation to never be hired back again.
Click to expand...

The important thing to note is that unless you spell out in writing that you are transferring the copyright over to the client, you have retained them whether you thought you did or not. The client does not automatically own them even though they paid you to produce the program for them. I am on-page with Jim in my surprise at the number of videographers that are so eager to give up the rights to the intellectual property they have created. True, you probably don't want, and indeed probably would not legally be able, to resell the footage yourself to other clients but that's not the issue ... your copyright is the only leverage you have to insure you get paid what the property is actually worth. Your normal fee for a 30-second local ad might be $5000 while the fee for an identical ad shot for a national market might be $25000 - your copyright and the contract conditions under which you have licensed the IP it covers to the client is the only leverage you have to prevent the client from paying you $5000 to do a local spot and then taking it national without paying the additional fee you would have received had you been booked to shoot a national ad in the first place. This is the reason advertising and editorial photographers fought long and hard to make their retention of copyright the normal practice in the publishing industry and it's just amazing how many videographers fail to understand the value of the rights they so casually give away. As a graphic example, mentioned just the other day in a photography forum, is the classic swimsuit photo of 70's glamour icon Farrah Fawcett. The photographer received a nominal day-rate fee for the original magazine photo shoot but because he retained the copyright instead of transferring it to his client, over the years he has earned a substantial amount in on-going licensing fees for the millions of posters that have been printed from the original photo.
 
That's just not the world I work in. Perhaps for photogs, but not for video or film...
 
For films it may work since I produce the content and thus own it. In those situations, I can license it as whatever price I see fit or someone is willing to pay.

Michael
 
j said:
That's just not the world I work in. Perhaps for photogs, but not for video or film...
Click to expand...
Of course it is ... the exact same laws govern video producers (and creators of other types of intellectual property as well) as govern still photographers, we all work in the same world in regards to the governing law. Now you may choose as a matter of business policy to relinquish those rights to your client or you may need to agree to transfer those rights to him at the conclusion of the project in order to close the deal, but you need to be aware that such tranfers MUST be explicitly stated in writing, they don't just happen automatically because the client pays you. And from a business practices standpoint, you should also be aware you are closing off a potentially signifigant revenue stream if you make transfer of all rights your business norm. Sure, do it if you must in order to secure the contract but then make sure your bid includes enough to cover the potential lost revenue. Some still shooters will offer a potential client the option ... photog retains copyright and the fee is X dollars, client receives the copyright and the fee is 3x to 5X dollars.

Now if your world has you functioning as a camerman only ... shooting for X hours at Y dollars an hour and handing over the raw footage to the program producer at the end of the gig, that's another matter. That is more likely to be a work-for-hire and it's the producer, not you, that would have copyright anyway.
 
Steve spelled it out. If you are paid x$ per hour to shoot for y, then you are an employee. The discussion here refers to producing a finished product. The point here is that people WILL take advantage of you if they can. My argument is, never make it easier for them than it has to be. This is not really about legalities, it is about perceptions and the way we conduct business.

If your situation is that they own you, then you have to deal with that reality. I do not believe that is a really good idea. The first time someone makes them a lowball offer to pay for that new xxxxxxxx they just bought, you are out on the street.

It seems that to many in this BUSINESS don't treat it as such. They are just happy to be working in their art and will suffer any indignity to keep at it. The still guys learned this way back with Matthew Brady and Alexander Gardner. Check out their individual histories and learn. If you take the time to research this aspect of what we do as much as all he buzz on short depth of field shooting, it can be enlightening.

May I remind all of you Mozart died BROKE!!!! All those around him, however did quite well!
 
Last edited:
Great! I'll let you lead the charge. Then I'll pick up the clients you leave behind... In my world it's not about retaining rights, it's about retaining clients.
 
j said:
Great! I'll let you lead the charge. Then I'll pick up the clients you leave behind... In my world it's not about retaining rights, it's about retaining clients.
Click to expand...

Keeping GOOD clients is great. The others, not so much. I would rather have one good client than 10 that are ready willing and able to cheat me. That philosophy has kept me in business for over 30 years. So I would guess I am doing something right. And yes I do control the rights carefully.

Sounds like you have some tough clients in Northern California.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top