[slackline]

After some advice.

Have had an architectural company contact me asking to use a picture of mine of something they designed in a brochure.

I'm thinking that normally they'd have to commission a picture of something so specific and I should therefore charge them if they wish to use it.

No idea what to ask for though, was thinking perhaps £40.

Thoughts & comments welcome.

Cheers,

slack---line

[Jim]

$1,000,000 and no less

[dave]

Nice one!

Depends what they're going to use it for, how long for, how big its reproduced, if its also going on their website etc etc. Might be worth seeing what the going rate for stock libraries is for similar use as a ball park idea.

Pragmatically speaking taking less is probably better than getting nothing at all if they find someone else. How did they find you, through flickr? If so bear in mind they probably are after a photo on the cheap....

[SA Chris]

$1,000,000 and no less

[Johnny Brown]

First you need to ask exactly what they are using it for, how large, and how many; the basic idea is the more exposure it gets the more they pay. If its a marketing brochure for themselves they will have a budget for photography - they may well be seeing what they can get off the web first before commissioning.

If you go on a photo library (eg my library or Alamy etc,) and choose a picture, you should get a detailed calculator which will give you an idea of current market rates. Might be worth seeing what choice they have too before you quote.

[slackline]

Thanks all for the prompt replies, I hadn't thought of looking at stock photo sites as its quite specific, but if they've all sorts of pricing ranges for different usage that would be handy.

The contact I've had from them suggests it will be used in a brochure, and they found the picture via Flickr.

@dave & JB wary of pricing myself out to other shots, looking for others that are on t'net is another sensible idea (quick Google image search has unsurprisingly thrown a few up).

Can use any money to get spare batteries for Peru 

[Jaspersharpe]

Worth bearing in mind that if you were to sell more than one or two in a year then you could class it as self employment, create a loss and offset it against your employment income. However if you only get £40 or so income in the year then it's definitely not worth declaring...

[slackline]

Cheers, I'll contact Sharpe Financial Services if I sell more than one picture (highly unlikely unless I actually make an effort to pimp out my crap pictures, unlikely as I've rarely got time/inclination).

[cofe]

This might also come in handy.

Just because they've found it on Flickr doesn't mean they want it on the cheap. They might have looked elsewhere, and Flickr is essentially a stock library these days.

[slackline]

Nice one cheers Cofe, lots of detailed info on that site.

I know Flickr teamed up with Getty Images, but have never had anything included, so they likely just found it through searching.

[Johnny Brown]

if you were to sell more than one or two in a year then you could class it as self employment, create a loss and offset it against your employment income.

How much do you think can be justifiably lost each year?

[Jim]

if you were to sell more than one or two in a year then you could class it as self employment, create a loss and offset it against your employment income.

How much do you think can be justifiably lost each year?

depends how much you spend on camera stuff I recon. Go mad, your going to need at least 2x nikon D4's (one as a back up) and as many lenses as you can store

[Johnny Brown]

I'm assuming its more like a certain percentage of turnover.

[Jaspersharpe]

No Jim is right. Provided the equipment can be classed as being purely for the purpose of the business then any expenditure on it is allowable. In the case of a photography business this wouldn't be difficult. The Annual Investment Allowance means that you can write off 100% of the cost of anything that fits the criteria in one year up to £25k (it was £100k but the Tory bastards reduced it to help pay for the cut in the headline rate of Corporation Tax).

JB are you saying you haven't been claiming capital allowances on your camera equipment? 

[Johnny Brown]

No, of course I have, previously 40% year 1, then 30% years 2 and 3, then 100% AIA last couple of years.

I just thought I would need to at least make an attempt at breaking even? Surely if I was to spend >£5K every year whilst bring in <£1K HMRC would be round? Particularly as I now have another income stream?

[Jaspersharpe]

It would be sensible not to go crazy with it but provided the expenditure was legitimate I wouldn't worry. The only problem you'd have would be if they tried to say some of the equipment was for personal use rather than just for the business but I think this would be virtually impossible to prove. How can you define which pictures you take for business use and which are just for fun when it's possible that any could end up being sold (as slackers case proves).

In your case I think it's just important that you are obviously running a business (you have a website and it is clearly a business venture etc). The fact that it might not make money is neither here nor there.

[tomtom]

So if I buy a PC that I use for work (my regular paid work) can I claim back against that?

[Jaspersharpe]

If you ONLY use it for work then yes, you probably can. It has to be something that you need in order to do your job and that your employer will not reimburse you for.

[tomtom]

Hmmm... <ponders use of SFS for tax reduction purposes>

So if I bought a pair of brown cords for work, and a jacket with obligatory leather elbow patches, could I claim these too?

The car??

[slackline]

So if I bought a pair of brown cords for work, and a jacket with obligatory leather elbow patches, could I claim these too?

Thats actually a good point, my employers expect me to dress (semi-)respectably, yet don't provide a uniform.  Therefore all the wear & tear on clothes comes out of my own pocket.

If I purchased clothes with the sole purpose of wearing them for work it sounds like they'd then be written off under the AIA.  For example I don't wear a suit for anything other than work (and the very occasional funeral, given up going to weddings).

If you can't do this then why aren't employers who impose a dress code obliged to either provide them (as was the case when I worked in a warehouse) or provide additional allowance for people to get the required clothes, because I sure as hell wouldn't wear suits, dress shirts, ties (no longer own any), or even smart shoes in my normal day to day life.

[dave]

Just rob the equivalent cost back by posting on internet forums on work time.

[Jaspersharpe]

No.

The rules are very strict and only protective clothing or the like is allowable. Other clothes have duality of purpose (even if you only use them for work). It's complicated, not fair and boring and I'm not going in to it but basically it's been done to death and nobody's ever won a claim.

Motor and travel expenses? Well if it isn't to and from your normal place of work and you don't receive expenses up to the allowable rate (45p per mile for first 10k and 25p above that) then yes, you can claim the difference.

Just rob the equivalent cost back by posting on internet forums on work time.

 

[slackline]

Just rob the equivalent cost back by posting on internet forums on work time.

 

I might just be able to break even there (work smart not hard is my philosophy, don't always succeed though, especially when I have to revert to using M$ fucking word/excel)

[tomtom]

Just rob the equivalent cost back by posting on internet forums on work time.

What happens if your job is to post on internet forums all the time?

(I'm bored...)

[dave]

I'm sure mick has his tax situation sorted.