Working with publicists has always been tricky for photographers who make a living shooting celebrities. Crossing a publicist can get you removed from the list but too much sucking up can also put you out of favor too, so there’s a very fine line to walk in the business. From the magazine side I’ve had publicists turn down photographers, give me a list of their own or say nothing at all about the choices. It all depends on the client and the agenda. But, in general the publicists can easily exert control of a shoot and a story if they wish. So, what happens if we remove magazines from the equation?
I’ve long thought that some of the business photographers do now producing editorial photography for magazines will become producing editorial images for clients who then distribute the images to magazines and other online sources (advertorial in a sense). I’ve seen this for a long time with products. The products that come with great photography always get more coverage. Not only does a well done picture convince the editor that the product is great it makes it easy to drop into the magazine. Online, it’s obvious that shiny product photography can get you plenty of coverage (some of it just about how shiny the product is). Most savvy product manufacturers produce editorial friendly pictures to go along with press and product releases.
The problem with this of course is that the client has control over “editorial images,” but if you’ve ever worked at a magazine it’s very clear that product manufacturers have been exerting control over their coverage for quite some time. The only reason to leave an advertiser out of a product review is if their product sucked and even then you risk losing the advertising.
Now I’m seeing several instances where photographers are teeming up with celebrities and publicists and cutting magazines out of the equation. Art + Commerce is now “producing our own celebrity shoots independent of commissioning magazines and covering all production costs” (from an email they sent around to publicists after the jump). I have no idea if they’re getting any traction with this (they didn’t respond to an email I sent them) but their roster is impressive and I can’t imagine that publicists aren’t paying attention. One agent I spoke with felt like it would remove all the mid level photographers from the equation because “newer photographers rely on the magazines to put them in the mix for assignments to elevate their career and get them seen.” I also spoke with an Art Director who works on celebrity shoots quite a bit and really thought that taking the voice of the magazine out of the equation would result in some mediocre shoots. I’m not so sure. Certainly magazines that want to remain relevant will need to commission original shoots but there is so much middle ground to cover where the publications don’t care but the opportunity still exists to elevate the coverage with great photography.
I also noticed that photographer Kurt Iswarienko is repped by the mega talent agency ICM (here) and while I didn’t call him to see I’m assuming this gives ICM the opportunity to pair their photographer with their talent.
And, finally we have Madonna one of the most image conscious celebrities in the world releasing sepia toned handout pictures of herself with the child she hopes to adopt in Malawi (here). In the Guardian story Martin Parr says, “Choosing sepia is all to do with trying to make the image look romantic and idealistic. It’s sort of a soft version of propaganda. Remember when the colour supplements used to run black-and-white pictures of famine and hardship? Some still do”
In the end I think these are all positive developments for photographers looking to replace lost editorial magazine shoots. Who knows if it will be good for media.
Sent: Fri Apr 03 2009
Subject: Art + Commerce Celebrity Shoots
Hey! Shay here. I wanted to fill you in with what I am doing at Art + Commerce, I think we could collaborate on this with some of your clients. ….see below.
We are now producing our own celebrity shoots independent of commissioning magazines and covering all production costs.
Art + Commerce represents photographers including Steven Meisel, Craig McDean, Annie Leibovitz, Carter Smith and Hedi Slimane and syndicate their celebrity images to high-end magazines, always upon publicist approval. We are bringing our photographers together with talent and their publicists to create iconic photographs and would love to speak with you about some of your clients who would be appropriate for this.
These images would be immediately available and would like to collaborate with you to secure US & international magazine placements, helping to promote your client for their upcoming projects. We have wonderful relationships with publications worldwide and are looking forward to offering them a wider variety of high profile images within our archives.
This is a venture that A + C offers to a limited amount of talent & publicists and would love to work with you on this.
Below is a link to a small collection of our artist’s work.
<redacted>
Hope all is well with you!
Shay Nielsen
ART + COMMERCE
24 Comments
I had a situation where I shoot an upcoming celeb for free via his publicist to get my career started. We went back and forth on the terms in which they wanted more FREE images and I gave them less. During the conversation the publicist assured me that if and when I got into a mag I would get the money from it. Needless to say I got into a mag, a feature no less, and there was no payment. Months later another mag wanted to use that same image as a cover and I let them know that I needed to be compensated for that since that is what the publicist and I agreed on. A series of phone tag later, I never got to communicate with the publicist about it and the opportunity has since past.
After reading your article my suspicion is that there is no more relationship there with that agency and my hope is that this was not used against me with industry professionals. Is it customary for publicists to get free work without any compensation to the photographer? Also, are the publicists making money off of the images getting into magazines?
@AR, Yes, the publicists make money getting stuff into magazines because the talent pays them (usually a retainer fee) to promote (publicize, if you will) them. Getting pictures in magazines is one way of promoting talent.
People are always seeking to get something free from whoever they can.
Apparently, there is an endless supply of photographers willing to give work away without a contract, without money and without a clue.
@AR, I’m unclear on why you didn’t get paid for the usage of the images. Did you sign any sort of contract with the publicist granting them license to your work for the purposes of sub-licensing? If so, what were the terms?
You could always pursue something with the magazine since they are publishing your work (did you register your copyright?). However, this might strain your relations with this publicist, since it would likely get back to them and strain their relationship with the magazine.
So if a publicist for a celebrity is asking for my high resolution photos of her client how do I respond to this? I am just beginning to get my feet wet in celebrity portraits. So I am a bit scared because I have the images but don’t really know how to sell them. Thus far an asistant has been contacting me for magazines or hands off my info to them. I also need a template of what a contract looks like. I have already sold images without a contract. I was thinking it was for a one time use…need SERIOUS HELP!
thanks
This is sort of what happens with music photography anyway.
That’s an interesting point about possibly blocking out beginning and intermediate photographers. I wonder though if the idea catches on fully, opportunities might open up for a beginner to start out with smaller celebrities and work up to the big names over time. Seems like it might even open up opportunities for photographers as it becomes standard for celebrities and those-who-want-to-be-celebrities to commission their own photography – I bet that’s a bigger market than the magazine market (even taking the internet into account).
Too utopian for photographers? Does this already happen more than I realize?
To borrow from talk radio:
Long time, first time.
I may be wrong, but without any editorial input aren’t we talking about glorified headshots?
@Geoff,
Have you seen most publications these days (esp. ones that run celebrity images regularly)?
You can hardly tell them apart. There is little, if any, “editorial input” – it is a glorified headshot ‘story’ crafted mainly by pr people…
Its not really a surprise that many sectors of the publishing industry are cratering when you consider how devoid of compelling content they are.
As a freelance concert shooter (15 years) contributing to magazines – I’ve enjoyed the freedom to cover who I want 99.9% of the time.
I’d like to think that I have had a small part in helping the careers of the artists I believe in.
In contrast shooting for a publicist – – removes the “talent scout” aspect for the most part.
~ H
“…One agent I spoke with felt like it would remove all the mid level photographers from the equation because “newer photographers rely on the magazines to put them in the mix for assignments to elevate their career and get them seen.”…….”
Exactly…..with this kinda business model, the jobs will either go to young kids who will work for free in order to get noticed, or the Peter Linbergh’s, Mark Seliger’s and Annie Leibovitz’s of the World will be requested even more than they are now! Hey, I’m no Pollyanna…I know that 98% of all celebrity portraiture is about sellin’ soap…but don’t even bother calling it ‘Editorial’ photography if the magazines publishing the shots are taken outta the creative mix.
BT
I have only been shooting celebs for about a year or two, so I am not an expert. But in my experience, this is really the way it works anyway. About half the shoots I do of celebs are set up by their publicists as P.R. shoots. There is often NO budget at all for these shoots, so I will eat the cost. The publicist then uses the photos to promote their client in the press, gaining them more exposure. And it all works out for the celebrity photographer because we then have full rights to the images to sell through our licensing agents. The more exposure or interest the celeb generates, the more the images will be resold. So I may go out of pocket on a shoot for a publicist, but can make all the expense back, plus a lot more, by Getty selling my images to various magazines around the world.
Also, there are some celebrities,publicists and licensing agencies that will partner up to commission a shoot like in the Art & Commerce example above. In fact, that is the business model of a couple licensing agencies out there. They may pay the photographer a decent day rate but retain ALL rights to the images. Or they may cover the expenses and split the profits on the images (after the expenses are recouped). Something like 40% for the agency, 30% for the celebrity and 30% for the photographer. Of course there are all sorts of permutations on this model as well.
Sometimes it can even be a disadvantage to have a shoot commissioned by a publication. The magazine may have strict embargoes on the images so we can’t resell them for a period of time or to certain types of other publications. And to top it off, the magazines usually have very limited budgets anyway. So we don’t really make much money on those kinds of shoots AND it can be harder to resell the images. One magazine will barely cover my expenses, but then will not let me resell the images for 18 months! Depending on the subject I will still do it….. especially if I think they will still be “hot” in 18 months, so I just look at it as an investment for the future.
In my experience, the publicists I have worked with all understand and respect the photographer’s position in helping their client gain exposure. And if the publicist gets a call by a publication looking for images of their client, they will almost always just refer them to our licensing agent anyway to purchase the images. So from the perspective of an advertising photographer, perhaps the questionable payment and contract arrangements may sound terrible. But in practicality it is a symbiotic relationship. There is no reason to feel sorry for a photographer who specializes in celebrity shooting…. once they have a decent stock of celebrity images, it can generate $20,000 to $30,000 a month, or even a lot more, whether or not the photographer is shooting new work.
There’s a complex ecosystem at work between the ‘notable subject’ i.e. product, celeb, musician – the photographer, and the media.
The media is part of the problem as they pay less and less to create original, quality content and rely more and more on hand-outs. The photographer can easily get caught in the middle, creating work on spec and hoping to earn income on licensing. But once the image is made and the concern shifts to getting the story out, paying the photographer becomes an afterthought (unless he/she strictly regulates the distribution and use).
As Elizabeth pointed out, this is very true in the music business. I try to advocate that bands (and labels, publicity people, etc. ) invest in creative, fairly licensed promotional photography. It’s astounding how much more media coverage you can get with a good live photo and a good portrait. The key is to fairly compensate the photographer.
I wrote about the relationship between music photographers, bands and media here if anyone is interested (with stick figure illustrations!): http://is.gd/sC7D
@jacob,
I like the link – great explanation (and illustration).
the money has always been in the “resale” of celebrity shots. even a cover shot pays nothing compared to the future royalties. whether commissioned thru the mag or the publicist. just hold on to your copyright!
its like Crisco, crap in a can…
the tone of that A+C email is rather off-putting. Are they sure A+C means Art+Commerce? I would suggest C+C (Cynicism+Commerce)
So then my question is: who signs the release, the publicist or the “celebrity.” That way we have our ducks in a row when and if it ever happens…
Can oe only market the image (editorially) only if neither happens since the actual (sitting) is proof of permission? Messy can this be….
Depressing.
What Elizabeth said : This is what happens in music photography already.
After doing press photos for a band for expenses only I recently had one show up as a magazine cover. A magazine cover is beyond “press” usage for the band as it is also selling the magazine making it commercial use, not just band promotion. In the magazines defense they were very understanding and apologetic and did end up compensating me for that use. Of course this is not always the case and the more I work in photography the more I learn (always the hard way) about the need for clear and extensive usage/rights contracts.
contract contract contract.
I’m having trouble resolving this usage issue in my head, espeically as illustrated by Jay.
Whenever I’ve done work like this, they generally want a lot of PR usage b/c they don’t yet know where they will be using it. So where is the line between their companies right to use the image as PR and my right to use it as stock.
I feel like blogs are the new magazines.
This guy Shay seems a little out of touch. According to a widely circulated story on PDN, Annie Leibowitz left Art & Commerce in mid-March & is now represented by Getty. Also, Art & Commerce never handled her syndication even when they did represent her.
Maybe they need to institue a company newsletter or something.
@Jon McVeigh, Annie Leibovitz is still very much a part of the Art & Commerce roster. Her deal with Getty’s Orchard does not affect her contracts with Art & Commerce or Contact Press.
@Debra Weiss, Well I’m no expert at how these companies operate, but Orchard says they handle all of her commercial/advertising work & Contact Press handles I don’t know what, & Art & Commerce never handled syndication of her images. They all seem a bitt messy to me. But maybe that’s a subject for a different thread.
Comments are closed for this article!