Primer & Refresher: Terms & Conditions
The Question comes in often enough...I need a contract, or I don't understand how to put a contract together. Well, here's my solution: I will deconstruct my original contract, term-by-term, and parse what each piece of it means. Sometimes in excruciatingly painful detail. For those of you who don't know how to write them, well, this is a primer. For those of you who do, it's a nice refresher.
Once you know exactly what each term means, you can effectively communicate to the client why it's all there, demystifying it for them (and yes, yourself). So, sit back, and relax. This isn't coming immediately, and there are nearly 20 T&C to review. Further, the T&C will be interspersed with other posts. Some of the terms are easier than others. BUT, I have added a new label "Terms and Conditions" so, after the fact, you can pull up all of them at once and review them at your leisure. Further, you can use the comments section to pose questions that either I, or others can can answer. If it's a great question, or one that helps the clarification, I will go in and edit the post to make that more clear.
I won't go over the front of an estimate (atleast not just yet), this is about the back side, the "fine print" as some might say. The First one's easy, but I will put that in a seperate post!
Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.
Consider the friendly photo editor.
Are we just assuming that the photo editor wouldn't pay that? That they assume we own the equipment? Isn't this a fair way to approach it? Some shoots are more complicated, and require more equipment, so this makes sense. 
photo editor is not friendly (but are well meaning I again want to emphasize) the ends should not be justified by the means. The PE should be given the leeway to sign off on whatever the specific line items are, rather than be subject to the bean counters telling them that X, Y, or Z is what is paid. Yes, yes, I know. This is supposed to be optimal, but it's not really realistic. Or is it? Is it fair? I think that if there is a range of fees, and the PE advises you that it is "plus expenses, including equipment", then I think that would work.
So, the question came in "How do I work as a semi-professional photographer without ruining the livelihoods of those who do it full time?"
Ok, you know you're in trouble when the blog Gawker, Manhattan's gossip blog 
it seems they started with their art department and got someone from elementary school to do the work for them. I mean, look at that to the left. That's just laughable. And look at the line where the sand hits the white area above? I mean, this MIGHT fly if it were a thumbnail, but heck, it plays as a 600px by 430px image. And look at this, to the right....
the "artist" didn't even bother to feather this foot! I have to say, I expect more from the New York Times.
Boy, whoever said it couldn't get worse didn't have a grasp on reality. Doritos sponsored a contest to create a commercial in which the winner gets theirs run during the Superbowl, which cost Doritos $2 million dollars. How much does 
Ok, so, how's about this? Think iStockphoto's going to do well? Well, think again. The 
The Wasington Post reports today that the New York Times profits are down on the value of the Boston Globe, awash in red ink, and they are citing "company plans to save up to $75 million in 2007 through cutbacks and outsourcing." What does that mean? They are cutting costs on the backs of staffers by hiring more freelancers at a pittance of the pay they should be getting. Martin Baron, Globe editor does not expect to eliminate more jobs during 2007, nor is the paper for sale. If I believe no more jobs will be cut, then how about that Brooklyn Bridge? Selling that too are we?
This has been a problem kicking around for some time, and I'm finally pissed about it. What is it? It's assistants shooting their mouths off about photographer's proprietary information, things they see and should just keep their mouths zipped about. The latest example is someone who needs a swift kick in the pants, and has (supposedly) given enough information that it would be very easy to narrow down exactly who he is. This is the example of someone who supposedly worked for Annie Liebovitz as a 5th assistant (and that person's job is to get coffee and hold the door open that low on the totem pole) and spied the (again, supposedly) new Canon camera. First, I know a little about how camera companies show off as-yet-unreleased camera bodies, and it more centers around the old body with a new chip and computer inside than it does blaring the new naming nomenclature on the front. Second, who is really this dumb when doing this as to reveal WHO they worked for and on what shoots? Are they dropping her name so as to provide some validity as we all say "oh yeah, she probably would be someone they'd show it to and get her input on, so it must be true!" all the while lying about actually seeing it in the first place?
This is a remarkable photograph of a Kastle keycard being used at a Kastle wall panel. The photograph was published on the front page of yesterday's Washington Post Business Section, and the story continued on into the inside of the paper, where another photograph appeared after the jump. At first blush, it appears simple, ordinary, and otherwise posed. 
Similarly, the inside photo is comparable, of two executives standing facing one another in (probably) the lobby of their offices. What is not, however, ordinary, is who took the photographs. The photographer is Carol Guzy, probably the single greatest winner of photographic competitions for as long as I can remember, and an amazing visual communicator, someone who will be remembered past her time for the work she produced. Someone who has traveled the globe documenting famine, suffering, and the triumph of the human spirit.
Because it's a part of what all newspaper photographers are called upon to do, document the ordinary from time to time. Not every photograph is an award winner, let alone even viable to enter a contest, nor should they be. Many many photographs taken by many many photographers illustrate a story, sometimes in a very straightforward way. This photograph is remarkable for what is is not, and for the fact that it was a living legend producing the image. It illustrates the point that we all are called upon to produce images that fill the day-in and day-out assignment sheets.
If an image is worth a thousand words, what's $1K get you? Questions. How about $960? Fewer questions, for sure. $960, or $1,020 are figures that fall into a concept that is referred to as 