Joseppi
Forum Replies Created
-
https://forums.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/new_read_post.cgi?forumid=17&postid=855496
In this thread a little farther down, Bob says something similar,
>Name: Bob Cole
Date: Jan 26, 2006 at 8:33:47 pm
Subject: Re: How much is too much?…[Charlie King] “The only exception has always been if I am really involved with a charitable organization, then I will give my work for free as a labor of love, but then too that is also tax deductable.”
I have been told I can not take a tax deduction for donating my labor. >>
Sounds like a version of my non-payment situation… whether you donate your labor, or don’t get paid for it, the IRS seems to not allow it, as it only allows you to claim expenses you paid, not losses to income… Even “gambling losses” they just recognize you basically spent (lost) money.
The rules seem to use a circular logic, that “you can’t claim money you never had to begin with.”
If there is a way to write off labor or non-payment, I would be all ears!
: )
Joe
-
Mark,
>>At 120 days, turn it over to a collection agency or write it off for tax purposes.>>
I was told by my tax advisor that I couldn’t “write off” (claim a loss for/deduction for) a bill that wasn’t paid; i.e. “I got stiffed.”
I didn’t think this was true so I looked up some IRS information, and it seemed to say that you can claim a loss limited to your expenses, but since my bill was entirely based on service and labor, no merchandise purchased, there is “nothing to claim.”
If I SPENT $1,000 on supplies, I could deduct the actual expense I incurred ($1,000) but could not write off the loss of labor since I never had to pay anyone…
I was surprised by all this, and thought there would be something under a “bad debt” writeoff, but that, again, seemed to be had I not been paid for a physical loss of merchandise. There seemed to be no IRS way to recognize labor loss.
This seems almost against logic… I earlier posed a scenario to the tax advisor (who is all labor-based as well) if I never paid him for the service work he did, he couldn’t claim that as a loss or bad debt? He said no…
While non of the above is legal advice, it’s just been my experience of trying to “write off” non-payment for services. Is there a way you know of to write off getting stiffed?
Joe
-
I come from a print/graphic design background, where the restrictions tend to be more strict, since the tools of graphics and printing are what counterfitters use… scanners, plates, negatives, printing presses, and color printers and copiers have been a leapfrog competition with security measures for years.
At a printing company I used to work at, years before I was there, the secret service came in, and in no uncertain terms, took the plates and negatives for a printing job. It seems a client had a $10 bill be printed, smaller than 100%, in a fake-looking green, and only on one side of the paper. They printed their business card info on the second side, so when the “bill” was folded in half, it attracted attention when handed out. Turns out somebody had actually passed off the fake money in another state.
When the guys in beige sedans pull up, and walk in wearing suits and flash a badge, it’s not something you want to happen a second time…
Joe
-
Tom,
>>As for usage, I pretty much practice non-exclusive and sometimes “one-time” use for a client based on their budget. As I mentioned above to Birdman, I am still an old school believer of e-6. >>
Pardon my question, but what’s “e-6”?
>>…Basically telling them that if I lease an original to them for specific time period, that the original is agreed to be of such, such value. So when it comes time to using it, the client will think twice about how to handle the original. Hopefully protecting it.>>
That sound reasonable. Now many commercial (film) labs, have adding scanning to their processing services. This is a nice bridge for the strictly film photogs, that lets them deliver scans on CD to their commercial clients (for layouts) without having to invest in all the computers, scanners, etc. And it keeps the transparencies from getting lost. I liked seeing that option available to the film photogs…
>>Anyhow, just curious I looked at your photos online. Have you ever been to Kenilworth or Warrick Castle “across the pond”? I myself have some pretty cool shots from there from when I visited a couple of years ago.>>
Not those castles in particular, but on a future trip someday I’d like to visit. I did make it to Bath (with the Roman baths), Stone Henge, S. Ireland… There is so much history to cover, just in England alone… the pub down the street could be 800 years old… we’ve lucky in the US to have buildings that didn’t get ripped down in the “pour cememt slab” rebuilding frenzy in the 70s…
Do you have a web site with any of your photography?
Cheers!
-
Tom.
As for photography, it sounds like you could solve this through “usage rights”… exclusive, or non-exclusive rights, etc. Basically price the image for a certain period of use, or an agreed, stated publication.
Where this might sound limiting to the buyer, it does raise the subject up front that the buyer can buy levels of use, for example:
A) complete buyout with exclusive, worldwide rights and copyright ownership (priced the highest)
B) Non-exclusive usage (they can use the image as much as they want, but you can also resell it)
C) A specific one time use (the least expensive)While it might be hard to actually monitor future use of the image by the company, at least you have an agreement you could refer to later.
I’ve seen this approach in pricing, where there is value based on the use. If clients don’t want to buy exclusive rights, perhaps their budget will allow more limited rights.
The Graphic Artist Guide pricing guide, and others, have sections on use and rights.
Now, all this usage rights talk applies if the work in question is quite unique… with the shift in photography at the stock houses from pay per use, to unlimited use stock collections, the industry has changed. The development and increase of digital photograhpy has increased the competition and enabled many companies to more easily set up small in-house digital studios as needed. Not that everyone is as capable as an experienced photographer, but it creates options, or a perception of options in the clients mind.
Given the change in the market, you will get a sense for if the clients feel “all this hassle for a picture… dude, it’s just a sunset, we’ll just bock a stock photo CD, or shoot our own…forget it…” Internet searches and digital cameras are providing a lot of options out there so you have to balance your product, market and client options.
Very likely though, you could structure a win-win situation, where you quote a lower price by selling “non-exlusive” rights which you could explain that the possibility of future sales helps you subsidize a lower cost for the current client. If the client wants “buyout rights” then at least you have a range of pricing options to match to usage.
HTH,
Joe