Base Usage Rate

P

petemc

Messages
9,504
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
No
To quote from The AOP...

To prevent misunderstandings when negotiating additional usage fees, and to enable the client to budget accordingly, it has been suggested that a Base Usage Rate (BUR) should be established. The BUR is the starting point for negotiating use of the work over and above the initial commissioned media and time period and should be clearly stated on the photographer's original estimate. It is the figure to which the percentages in these guidelines are applied. It is suggested that the BUR should not be less than the negotiated day rate, and could be pitched according to the amount of input and involvement required from the photographer.

When a photographer is doing a ‘budget’ job for the client at less than their normal day rate, then the BUR could be set at their normal day rate for that type of commission

Example: The client has commissioned a shoot for use in the UK, press and posters for 1 year, they now want to include point of sale. BUR has been negotiated at £2000, a licence for point of sale should be 25-50% BUR – cost of additional licence £ 500 - £ 1000.

When several images from a single day’s shoot i.e. the same subject or variations from a single shoot, are used by the commissioner, then each individual image should be subject to a negotiable BUR, at less than the original commissioned day rate agreed.
Click to expand...

So from my understanding the base usage rate for a shoot is my day rate, £400. The commission includes 1 years usage in 2 mediums in the UK. So say if a company wants to use the shots on their website for 2 years or more, I would work that out as a percentage of the BUR. An additional year for web usage is 30-60%. Now according to the last paragraph there its per image. If we went with 50% thats £200 per image as I understand it. £200 per image for usage on the web a year after the initial license period. So for the solicitor job I have thats £200 x 89! So to use 89 images on a website after the 1st year costs... £17,800!

That can't be right can it? Have I got the wrong end of the stick?
 
solicitors charge about 125.00 per hour, so it would seem reasonable and after all the job involves travelling and is very labour intensive.
 
No no, this isn't the job. Its the licensing of the images for extra usage. The job figure and expenses is one price, this is licensing. The quote for the initial shoot and a license to use them on the web for a year is around £3k. Extra usage after the first year is, according to the AOP, priced at a percentage of your day rate (£400). So per image at 50% of my day rate for 1 extra year on the web is £17k or a shiny new car. I'm sure I've got that wrong. I can see how it works for 1 image as its only £200 per year then, but for 89 its a stupidly high figure.
 
sorry pete, it sounds great if you can get away with it, but i'm sure the firm of solicitors will want it all written in stone...dont forget, they are paying for extra use of your expertise and like them, you aint no charity....sounds like alot of dosh for an extra liscence but they will be getting good use from your images and if thats the going rate then they should pay it.
 
Yeah thats why I'm trying to get my head around it. They said they will be using them for a while on their site, not just 1 year. But quoting £17,800!? I will quote that if I have evidence to show that I'm doing things correctly. If I have interpreted the AOP's guidelines then that is the correct figure and I'll tell them. I've got to send the quote in on Monday and I can't say on Tuesday "Oh sorry, got something wrong."
 
Pete

Thats a well complicated situation, but i think your right in how you've done the calculation. As all the images feature diffrent subjects.

You could always argue that they are a variation, and emplay this bit from the AOP.

When several images from a single day’s shoot i.e. the same subject or variations from a single shoot, are used by the commissioner, then each individual image should be subject to a negotiable BUR, at less than the original commissioned day rate agreed.

You will still end up with a monster amount.

I think your calculation is correct, Its up to you if you want to show a % discount for multiple images etc.
 
And dont forget, that shiny new car becomes less shiny after Tax...and 89 images is alot of images...I run my own business (not photography) and sometimes I price cut for good customers and occasionally I will price cut if I think that i'm going to lose a job, but I play it by ear, ...so I suppose if you think 17,800 is alot to ask for, then you could ask for a figure that youre happy with, after all you are getting paid for the initial job.

good luck with it pete and dont let the solicitors nail your hat on.
 
If I knocked half off its still a huge figure. A 50% discount is quite a thing to knock off too. I think I would have to change it so the initial fee is for 2 years on the web only and no other usage is allowed. Then if they want to use it in another medium it will be a % of £400 per image. I doubt they would want to use all 89 in another medium.

The initial Licence
The original negotiated commission fee would normally include the following:
1 Year UK or any single country - any two media (third media may be included depending on its
proportion of the media spend)
2 Years UK or any single country - any one media
Click to expand...

From the AOP.

Then for a 3rd years usage its £17,800. :eek:
 
While you have to be careful not to "undercut" yourself, you also have to make a living.
Having had the odd solicitors bill in the past, I wouldn't feel guilty about asking for that amount of money :LOL: especially as you seem to have done your research and have "concrete evidence" to back up your figures
 
Exactly. I don't want to shy away from doing what I should just because it seems like a large figure to me. They could have quotes from 10 other photographers saying the same thing if they've read the same information.
 
why not sell them the rights to the pics for whatever they want to use them for and no other usage at a price you are happy to accept. if it turns out to be a good deal more than you were expecting when you agreed to take the work fine. don't over do it, it could lead to more work is really what i am trying to say. £8000 a year for 5 years is better then £17800 over over 2 for instance.
just my thoughts, pbh
 
Quotes already sent. I wouldn't sell them the rights as I doubt they could afford them :)
 
If I was buying this photography (I do buy photography as part of my job) I wouldn't expect to pay any more than the initial cost, £3k in this case, to extend the licence for the same period again. Obviously I would get it quoted at the time but this is the norm for the type of photography I buy (and this does sound just like the type of photography I buy).
 
Yeah that makes sense. The way I understand the AOP's guidelines is that if in 6 months the client wants to use an image in a magazine it would cost say £200, which is fair if they can afford to pay nearly £4k at the start. However when they want to continue using all 89 later on then it gets pricey again. I've dropped it to £50 per image for web usage.
 
That would be correct IF you were estimating it would take you a full day to produce each of the 89 images.

However, if you estimated you could produce 89 images in less than a day, then your BUR per image would be whatever your basic production costs where for that day, divided by 89, e.g. approx £4.50 per image.

So for one additional years use, the licence fee based on the above information, would be 89 x £2.25 = Total.
(This is assuming your basic production costs were £400, rather than £400 + expenses).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice bit of thread necromancy there.. (y)

lol
 
petemc said:
The quote for the initial shoot and a license to use them on the web for a year is around £3k.
Click to expand...
So then that would indicate your BUR was more than this amount, as this is less than 'standard use'.
'Standard use' being either 2 media for 1 years use or 1 media for 2 years use... in 1 country.

Which would therefore indicate you gave them a 50% discount here - and your actual BUR was £6,000 or £67.42 per image.
 
Ashleymorrison said:
So then that would indicate your BUR was more than this amount, as this is less than 'standard use'.
'Standard use' being either 2 media for 1 years use or 1 media for 2 years use... in 1 country.

Which would therefore indicate you gave them a 50% discount here - and your actual BUR was £6,000 or £67.42 per image.
Click to expand...

Probably gone up by now ;-)
 
why on earth pull up a 5 year old thread??
 
matty said:
why on earth pull up a 5 year old thread??
Click to expand...

I'm going to hazard a guess that they were Googling "Base Usage Rate" and this pensionable thread popped up, they've then joined just to comment on it but haven't really read the thread properly to see just how dead and buried it was.

Anyone want to bet they'll become a forum regular?
 
Alastair said:
I'm going to hazard a guess that they were Googling "Base Usage Rate" and this pensionable thread popped up, they've then joined just to comment on it but haven't really read the thread properly to see just how dead and buried it was.
Click to expand...
You are correct on your guess - and because I was amazed that no-one here was able to answer this question correctly - which I actually had noticed was still un-answered correctly after 5 years - then I thought it was time someone did.

Because this is the first basic step, on how to go about determining the value of one's images, which every photographer should know.
 
When a thread drops away it's highly unusual for it to come back after so long. Thanks for your imput, hopefully you'll be sticking around..?
 
Welcome on-board Ashley :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top