Charging per photo after already charging for your time (corporate imagery)

[Redgum]

You've already charged for the photos, you can't charge again, that's unethical. The truth is that, subject to your agreement, they own the photos. If they ask you to enhance those photos by all means charge them for the work.
Warbler, in the majority of cases with commercial photography (weddings excluded) you are selling your photos with the copyright. Newspapers, magazines, govt departments, commercial enterprises would all expect to employ you for your skills and the emphasis is on "employ". These larger organisations simply have a task to be done for which you are an employee or contractor, they own the product by choice, or otherwise they employ someone else.
Plenty of professional photographers out there willing to work without worrying about amateurs unless they want a giveaway once up price or don't have the budget. Either way, repeat business is unlikely.
Also, photography is a negotiated business based on what and when and rarely has anything to do with "going rates".

[Warbler]

Warbler, in the majority of cases with commercial photography (weddings excluded) you are selling your photos with the copyright. Newspapers, magazines, govt departments, commercial enterprises would all expect to employ you for your skills and the emphasis is on "employ". These larger organisations simply have a task to be done for which you are an employee or contractor, they own the product by choice, or otherwise they employ someone else.

Better do your homework again buddy. In fact, with few exceptions, the photographer owns copyright. One of those exceptions is weddings by the way where unless there is a contract to the contrary, the client owns copyright.

This link used to be free, but I see now it is user-pays, but $30 well spent. http://shop.copyright.org.au/product...roductid=16559

In summary though:

• Unless there is an agreement to the contrary, the general rule is the photographer is the first owner of copyright.
• Exceptions to this general rule are photographs taken in the course of employment ie if you are a staff photographer or just an employee taking photographs on behalf of your employer.
• Newspaper/Magazine Publishers (except for freelance photographers who retain all rights)
  
  • Before 1 May 1969 the publisher owns copyright
  • After 1 May 1969 and before 30 July 1998 The publisher owns the rights for newspaper and magazine publication and broadcasting, the photographer owns all the rest including publication in books.
  • After 30 July 1998 the photographer owns the rights to photocopy and include in books and the publisher owns the rest.
  
  
• Photographs taken for a Federal, State, or Territory Government - unless there is an agreement to the contrary, is the first owner of copyright in material created, or first published, under its direction or control. This does not apply to Local Governments.
• For "commissioned" photographs (ie where the person paying the photographer is not the photographer's employer,
  
  • Prior to 1 May 1969, the person paying owns the copyright unless there is an agreement to the contrary
  • After 1 May 1969 and before 30 July 1998, the first owner of the copyright is the client unless agreed otherwise
  • After 30 July 1998, it depends on the purpose for which the photographs were taken.
    
    • If they were taken for private or domestic purposes (like weddings or family portraits), the first owner is the client unless agreed otherwise.
    • If they were taken for any other purpose eg commercial shots, the photographer will be the first owner of copyright, unless there is an agreement otherwise.
    
    
  • However, if a person retains copyright as a result of commissioning it in the absence of any other agreement, the photographer has the right to restrain the use of the photograph for any purpose other than those for which it was created, provided those purposes were made known at the time the photographs were created. This rule applies to any photograph taken on or after 1 May 1969. Even though the client is the owner of copyright, the photographer can rely on his/her right of restraint to negotiate further payment for
    uses that were not contemplated at the outset.
  
  

So, I suggest you better acquaint yourself with these provisions Redgum. You might find it to your advantage.

And before you come back with the standard "Oh that's very well in theory, but in practice...blah, blah, blah" It may be different in practice for you, but those who know and use written agreements will find it can and does work. Sure there are clients who want copyright ownership, and you can come to an agreement along those lines, but you should put a value on those rights and adjust your prices accordingly. Make sure your client knows that you are doing that too. If they don't want to pay for ownership, then you make a business decision that suits you.

[Mark L]

The truth is that, subject to your agreement, they own the photos.

However we don't know what the original agreement was?

[Redgum]

However we don't know what the original agreement was?

An "hourly" rate is an employment contract - he was employed to take the photos for the multi-national. He can't turn around now (they've asked for 7) and charge them again for the work he has already been paid for. What was he expecting for his hourly rate and did this conform with the client? Surely there was some form of verbal agreement at that level?
It would appear that mechawombat and the multi-national company are both a little confused on what they agreed, if anything.
I guess the lesson here is that you need to do the "business" first and take the photos second.

[Shane.R]

An "hourly" rate is an employment contract - he was employed to take the photos for the multi-national. He can't turn around now (they've asked for 7) and charge them again for the work he has already been paid for. What was he expecting for his hourly rate and did this conform with the client? Surely there was some form of verbal agreement at that level?
It would appear that mechawombat and the multi-national company are both a little confused on what they agreed, if anything.
I guess the lesson here is that you need to do the "business" first and take the photos second.

I have always found your advice 2nd. You advised me to sell a pic for $50 but I sold it for $500. Anyway, did you miss this from the OP..

My questions is they want 7 of the images and I gave them a hourly rate.
Now they are wondering the cost for the images.

It's obvious we don't have ALL the facts.