I have started up a wedding and event videography and I have this photographer and friend (close friend's boyfriend) that is interested in working under my company name. Basically I do all the business work, getting clients, paying the bills, and he gets to shoot and edit the photos. Eventually maybe handle all the photography side of the business. So far he has been working for free building his photo portfolio and I am using his photos for my website.

I was wondering what you guys think is a reasonable cut I should receive from the profit made from his photography. Would it be a percentage or a set amount of what is made from the client? For example, he said he wants eventually about no less than $1000 from a gig. If say $2-3000 profit is from the client how much is reasonable to deduct for me and the company? Keep in mind he'll be using my company name, not paying for a tax license, insurance, advertising, etc, basically being my employee but he'll be using his own equipment. Any help or ideas will be appreciated. I am interested what others come up with or what others are doing. Thanks.

I'd say be very careful here - it would be better to set this up as a "subcontractor" rather than an employee. Do some research, you'll understand why.

Unfortunately, perceptions of what is "reasonable" vary greatly, and are best put into writing so there are no surprises.

You're in some very sketchy areas here, and should consult an accountant at the least, and probably an attorney or paralegal to set things up to protect everyone properly. Set it up wrong, you could lose everything...

I'd say 50%. I'm considering a similar arrangement with a videographer for weddings, and that's the number I'm looking at.

Also don't assume your insurance will cover him. He's a subcontractor, and your liability insurance probably won't cover him.

I would advise you to take 200 dollars and sit down with a good business attorney and get their advice. You also may need to ask a tax attorney for your question.

I've been approached with a 'partnership' idea as well. I would only do it after consulting an attorney.

As for your original question for how much for the cut, I would think it might have something to do with who is bringing in the client. This is just one issue you need to have detailed on paper.

I agree with the contractor status.

I am also leary of of these type of arrangements.

It might work for a while, but after the dollar amounts go up, human nature kicks in and all of the sudden clients are being stolen and somebody is a "victim" and is not paid what they deserve ect...

That may be over-reacting, but maybe not. Just be careful and ask yourself how well do I know this person and do I want to risk my business to partner up with them.

If you pass this point, then take the necessary steps to protect yourself by writing it all down and have signatures.

Everyone is making very good points and I'm rethinking this arrangement. I think it would be best if I hire him as an employee (so that he's covered for liability) and have him only take pictures, I can edit them or he can. That's all he does from there, I own the pictures and do what the clients want with them. Also, I'll have one or two other photographers lined up (people I know) and tell him this is how much this gig will pay if he accepts good if not then I'll ask another photographer if they want the job.

I think this way there is less risk for me and less control for the photographer and I won't be depending solely on one photographer.

The IRS has a set of tests about how to tell an employee from a consultant or contractor and it is not a clear area (for one discussion see: http://www.techprose.com/contracts_1099_criteria.html ). Hiring employees is a big step because of the record keeping (tax withholding, worker's comp etc.) requirements.

You need to see an accountant and an attorney etc. Time spent getting it right now will solve major headaches down the road.

Photography is difficult when it comes to ownership of the photos.

I think technically, the one who snaps the shutter owns the copyright to the image.

Some research might be warranted to find out the exact situation for this as I could see this would be a major problem if things went off the track...

Also, contractor or employee is very important to distinguish between as well.

If this makes any difference the guy is a hobbyist and not a professional photographer.

Tim, you're right when the dollar amounts goes up, who knows what will happen then. Money makes people act funny.

I'm really torn in this situation. After research I think a subcontractor would now work best.

You can have multiple subs, "employees" can create a lot of headaches unless you LIKE bookeeping or know someone who does...

You can designate that the subs release all copyright to you, but again, you need legal and accounting reasearch if you're seriously into DIY, or pay someone before you make any decisions and get it written up so everyone understands the terms...

There is another potential negative in that other photographers may think of you as a threat rather than as a professional in a parallel service. This would remove them as a source of leads/referrals and they would tend to be less cooperative when you work beside them.

I would also be concerned about the potential liability exposure.

When I meant photographers I meant those capable of taking excellent pictures but don't have their own business, but your point may still hold true. Very good point, I did not take it into account.

For the liability exposure, do you mean the fact that they won't be covered under my liability insurance?

Yes. It would be a good idea to review the coverage with your insurance agent.

Usually copyright is with the photographer. BUT . . .

If you are commissioned to take photographs, then the copyright is usually with the person who commissioned them unless you have something else agreed (preferably in writing). And you would be expected to hand over all photographs or film of the event etc.

So if you are paying another photographer to take the photos, you own the photos. Or your client does if that is what you agreed with the client. The other photographer would be either an employee, or a subcontractor.

I am told this applies in the US as well as the UK

I am going to disagree a little with those who suggest hiring professional consultants (accountant and attorney) to handle this. If you are not comfortable reading and understanding information you might have no choice but to pay someone else. But there's a great deal of information available online from the IRS, etc. and common sense goes a long way in legal agreements.

In general reselling someone else's professional service is a bit challenging I think, but it can be done. The key is that both parties have to provide something really valuable to the process. Otherwise someone is getting paid for not really doing anything, and eventually the other person figures that out.

Marketing and sales is expensive however, and if you are doing that for him in a way that really helps bring in jobs he couldn't bring in on his own, you should have a legitimate situation where you both have value to offer.

I agree with your leaning about bringing him on as an employee not a contractor. There's some extra paperwork up front, but it's often more of the high road to take as far as taxes and liabilities go.

Mark

My understanding is that under U.S. copyright law all rights to any creative work belong to the creator unless they are created under a "work-for-hire" or "work-made-for-hire" agreement. Such an agreement must be explicit. Employing someone to do creative work does not automatically create a work for hire agreement.

This is a mind-numbingly complex area of the copyright law and you are best getting professional advice for your situation because it is complex and source of many, many potential problems

Here's a interesting video as the doctrine applies to music:

http://www.artistshousemusic.org/videos/work+for+hire+publishing

Mark -
The reason for recommending professional guidance is simple - there's at least as much MIS-information out there as accurate info. Even "professional" advice might vary quite a bit...

I agree that doing one's own "due diligence" is the best thing, but sometimes it's a time saver to let an expert step up to the plate. Serious research takes serious time.

The areas that the OP was addressing could result in endless litigation, bankruptcy or fairly severe administrative action by governmental entities if done wrong...

"Professional" advice is far cheaper in comparison, even if it doesn't 100%guarantee you're safe. Combine it with your own research and asking lots of questions and you're less likely to lose your business to a stupid mis-step.

Re-read the original post, and you'll see why professional advice was suggested - OP was a LONG way from understanding the issues.

My understanding is that under U.S. copyright law all rights to any creative work belong to the creator unless they are created under a "work-for-hire" or "work-made-for-hire" agreement. Such an agreement must be explicit. Employing someone to do creative work does not automatically create a work for hire agreement.




As I understand it you are correct. "Work for hire" only applys automatically if the person doing the creative work is a regular "W2" employee and acting within the scope of their regular job duties. A news cameraman working full-time for a TV network does not own the copyright to his footage - his employer does - because that is job and he is paid a wage or salary subject to withholding, operates under the direct supervision and control of the employer, is subject to review, and all the other stuff that distinguishes an employee from a contractor. But a freelancer who is hired as a contractor on a story-by-story basis is NOT an employee in the same sense of the word and he owns the copyright to his footage unless it is agreed otherwise in writing and as I understand it the term 'work-for-hire' must be explicitly used. That's why most contracts hiring such a freelancer would, or should, contain a provision that the resulting work does, in fact, constitute a 'work-for-hire' with copyright assigned to the person doing the hiring.

to amend my earlier post:

Copyright normally resides with the creator or a work - photos, video, written pieces etc.

If someone pays you to go out and shoot a specific piece for them, copyright is often with them, but should be clarified in writing - as Peter and Steve have stated.

In the days of film - for stills photos at least - I was occasionally asked to photograph a subject, and then hand over the entire unprocessed film to the commissioner - I didn't even see the photos.

I worked briefly with a freelance camera-man who filmed some wonderful stuff of otters and other animals near where I live, and he had to hand over the whole lot to the company who had commissioned it - if it hadn't been digital, he wouldn't have seen the results for himself either. He wasn't allowed to copy any of it to watch later for his own pleasure.

Obviously these situations remove any risk that the results of the commissions could be used commercially by anyone without the permission of the person that commissioned them.