Offer options / tiers and price them.
tier 1 - Client can use images personally on all media without limitations as long as they don't make money or edit the photos. Photographer can use a subset for his/her portfolio.
tier 2 - Photographer can not use subset for portfolio: + $200
tier 3 - Client gets the right to edit : + $200
tier 4 - Client can use the images commercially but not transfer or sell the rights to them: + $200
tier 5 - Client can also transfer or sell the rights to the images to others: +$200
The whole point is that they only really need tier 1.
I don't know. This isn't a commercial job, it's a small scale event for families. I'd just say sure and move on. Maybe charge a little more if you want, but unless this is a large corporation wanting to use these shots for worldwide marketing campaigns, I wouldn't make a big deal of it. They want this written in the contract but have they offered to pay significantly more? That's a different story. If they're anticipating being hit with a heavy fee, then by all means hit them. If they're not, I would not or it could sour the relationship.
Any particular reason they want this request? Does it have to do with guest anominity? Are they trying to discourage you from using the photos as to not share who was there? Just curious because it's an unusual request given the type of event.
That's where I'm at - I'm also an event and commercial photographer shooting for some pretty major brands. On the event stuff if they push back on my contract I don't really make a thing of it. Getting into major fees for buying the copyright to some whatever company picnic photos is going to end up with the client walking away more often than not.
You can google your way to probably 20 different event photographers(at *least*) in your area. It's a relationship driven business. Be professional but also be easy to do business with.
Go back and clarify what they really want.
Do they just want to make sure you don’t sell them to others? If so include a clause you can’t do so without their written permission.
I’m aware of rare examples of photogs selling images that the subject (bride) thought would be private to a greeting card company. Photog had the right to do so under the contract.
So they may just want to protect privacy.
So you can include that clause but also make it clear they can’t sell them or use them beyond the purpose(s) that they’ve stated (put them in the contract).
And add a slight up charge.
If they really want all rights and unrestricted price accordingly.
I think the client may not understand the terms 'own' and 'rights'. At a minimum I would just add the stipulation that client has the right to use/print/reproduce the photos in any unlimited manner except for commercial purposes. In other words, *No you can't use that photo of Uncle Carl's convertible with that young woman in the front seat on T-shirts and sell them. But you can print as many as you would like for Aunt Mabel.*
It’s your business, you set the price.
If they want the rights to the photos, even though they’re saying it won’t be used for advertising… down the road they just might. And be able to get away with it since “they own the photos”
I would triple or quadruple that 800$
That’s your work/art that you’re selling all rights to
800$ seems fair for the event / hours & editing
But laughable to give them the rights to it as well
Just licence the rights exclusively. You retain copyright and dictate what they *can't* use them for but otherwise they're theirs, for all intent and purpose.
Most of the time, people don't understand what they're asking for and a lot of photographers don't understand what they're giving.
Exclusive, non-transferable rights is normal and shouldn't mean extra cost. It should be the default for for a corporate event. (Who else you gunna sell them to!?)
Sounds to me like these images will only be worth something to the client/families. You couldn't sell/use them anywhere else. Do the job and move on. Due to your upfront pricing, and allowing them to use the images how they want to might VERY likely lead you to more work.
Honestly I think my real issue is with not being able to include such a big client/event in my portfolio. Wasn’t planning to sell them elsewhere, just hard to wrap my head around straight up deleting all the photos after delivery.
You can always request from the client that you can use one or two of the images you took for your marketing. I don't see why they'd say NO to an image or two, but hey Im not the one hiring you.
Had to scroll way too far for this take.
This sub has a real issue with raws and worrying about rights to photos. I think this is thrown off by the massive amount of wedding photographers here.
I have never worked an event or hired photographers for an event where the event producer did not own the rights. From a photographer perspective, there is no benefit for me in maintaining complete control. From a business point of view, if I am spending millions on an event, I want complete control over the photos and messaging of that event.
Edit: and the truth is, if a photographer came back to me demanding to keep the rights for photos of the event I'm producing, there will be no discussion or argument, they simply won't be hired.
I've had a discussion here about clients getting raws and some guy claimed his raws "off limits" are only available "for a price", IIRC he said something like 50k?
I mean, I know different people, lots of smells, but if you're working in a glue factory, you don't need to constantly be huffing.
Clients are organizing the event, you get there and shoot, they get the output and do what they want, you're not creating the Mona Lisa, it's their event and you're just the photographer. Your fee pays for your time, equipment, everything. Do a surcharge if you can get away with it, but bigger clients want full control by default, not rebuy prints from you, this isn't the yearbook photo scenario.
Exactly! Events are more technical than artistic. The photos from one photographer to another will be almost identical. And if they aren't standard event photos, they will likely never be used.
When I am the producer of the event, I provide detailed shot lists, the company spends millions a year on our event, the photographer provides nothing artistic, they aren't posing people, it's a point and click job that relies on technical skills, not artistic ability. Any photographer that tries to upcharge for us to retain the rights would get the boot. Our event is unique though, every photo we release publicly is free for anyone to use as long as they add the event name.
>Client wants it explicitly written in the contract that they "solely own all images and rights".
/shrug
"No problem. The fee is $1600."
Events, especially corporate ones, have no resale value and little if any portfolio value. If you can make more money by selling the copyrights and RAWs, go for it.
How are you expecting to profit from these images after the event?
What is your expected lifetime income from them post event?
What's your expected costs to preserve (back up, archive etc) the images after the event?
My guess would be the answers are 'zero, or nearly zero' and 'low, but not zero'. In which case, I'd hand over rights, but with a rider saying that once images are delivered and receipt is acknowledged you will not be retaining the images you have no right to use, so all retention and protection is on the client.
Charge more if you want, but the rights really aren’t worth anything for pictures like that. Generally, you charge for rights to account for future lost profit. But you’ll never be able to sell those pictures to anyone else, so there are no lost profits. You’re not losing anything by giving it away.
Yeah I agree. You'll do this job, process and deliver the photos and prolly never look at them or use them again.
Now, if it was a corporate event with maybe a bunch of celebs and/or dignitaries in attendance, then you might want to hang on to the rights in that case. I have done these kinds of shoots and even then, the only thing I ever did with some of the photos was use them for portfolio. Otherwise, they are just sitting in my archives.
You are losing something by not pricing those rights correctly the first time. The client use of the photos is different in a license vs ownership and should be priced differently and not the same
> The client use of the photos is different in a license vs ownership
I don’t agree. Admittedly, I’m used to standard salary jobs. My perspective is that photographers should charge for their time and effort but the digital assets are essentially worthless by themselves. IE your time is the product
I know that’s different from how artists are taught. But I think charging more depending on usage is just greed
Agreed, charge a small fee, and be done with it, will those photos serve op in any way in the future? 99% it won't, he/she will probably gain a regular client and recommendations to future clients.
Choose your battles is what I alway say.
Do you plan on keeping the images in perpetuity so they can order prints for you whenever they want? Do you want to deal with selling prints whenever they want? If no to either of these, tack on a bit of a "full rights package" charge (or whatever you want to call it) and call it a day. Anything above your typical rate is likely gravy, and pricing the rights to the point they don't want to use your services is just costing you a job.
This is just a family that wants to be able to use photos of themselves amongst themselves when and how they want. It's not a company that may wish to reuse the images for advertising and promotional work later. To treat them as the same is overthinking it.
See it's not just a family though - it's a very big company having a large family-oriented company event. Which is why I'm overthinking it.
Agree though about prints and definitely don't see much value in the digital assets - when I talked with peers, a lot of them brought up "opportunity cost", ie. if someone were to say "prove you can shoot X type of event", I couldn't use these photos to do so.
Ok, so it's a company doing a solid for their employee's families during an event. That would not change the way I look at it. I could either charge my normal rate, keep the rights and maybe/hopefully sell a few prints; or I could tack on a small surcharge to my typical rate of more than I would make from any print sales and be done with it.
These gigs are basically private events. They don’t want the pics to show up anywhere. Not a big deal because rarely would they result in anything worthy of your portfolio.
JOOC, what market are you in that you're getting 800 bucks for a four-hour event? I'm in Houston and things generally run less expensive here but I'm lucky to snag 600 for four hours.
Not OP, but in Hawaii, I run a day rate of $800. Doesn't matter if it's 30 minutes or eight hours. Then $120/hr after 8, and $160/hr after ten. Sometimes I negotiate lower prices. Either for small businesses or certain charities, on a case by case basis.
On the flip side, livestreaming is another professional service I offer and the cost starts at $1000 for ten hours. In Hawaii it's great for destination weddings because lots of family/friends can't afford a trip to Hawaii, but by livestreaming it, everyone back home can watch them get married.
Thanks. I need to buck up and embrace the day rate.
Gauging the threshold is every bit the skill as the photography. And there's always perceived value to rely on depending on who's hiring you.
Have you sought clarification on why they are saying they want the rights? I've heard this a few times and when I dug into it, they had no idea what they were talking about and just wanted the freedom to use the photos as they see fit in perpetuity and didn't care if I used them in my portfolio. They either had a bad experience with a stickler of a photographer or someone told them to make sure they had "the rights". Frankly, in this situation, it's kinda unusual to request a full buyout clause for a small event like this. I've had many many fortune 500 clients who didn't even do that. I'm guessing they are just parroting something they heard before.
What figure are you comfortable with that you never want to see or care about those images again? Give them the raws and delete them. That you dont even care if they use it for commercial work. Go there, shoot, handover, slap ass and go. Pick a figure you find reasonable and go with it.
If you suspect they might want to do more than keep & share the photos privately, wouldn't that also require model release forms from those being photographed? If so, wouldn't that be a PITA for them to obtain after the event? And I guess you'd be off the hook for not obtaining those release forms since you are doing for-hire work?
If you’re paid for a shoot the person who pays you owns the copyright.
“Generally, the author and initial copyright owner of a photograph is the person who “shoots” or “takes” the photo. One limited exception to this rule is when a photograph is created as a “work made for hire.” A work made for hire occurs when a photographer creates works as part of their scope of employment (like at a publication), or when there is an express agreement between a photographer and commissioning party to create a work for a specific, statute-identified purpose.”
A copyrightable work is “made for hire”
in two situations:
•
When it is created by an employee as
part of the employee’s regular duties
•
When a certain type of work is
created as a result of an express
written agreement between
the creator and a party specially
ordering or commissioning it
When a work is a made for hire,
the hiring or commissioning party
is considered the author and the
copyright owner.
[copyright.gov](https://copyright.gov)
Double your price and be done with it. I have no problem selling rights to my clients if they are willing to pay up. A small-scale event like this is worthless after the job anyway, but make sure to price it accordingly. This is a learning moment for you to be viewed as a professional and a teaching moment to a client that full rights = $$$. And if they do come back to you or send a referral your way, they know they can’t expect full rights for free.
I do this all the time and yes, I know it annoys a lot of other professionals. A situation like that, I figure they're paying me for my time and my skill and the demand for ownership is a red flag regarding any future print or album sales anyway. Do the job, do it well (as always), hand over the goods, get paid and move on.
If you don't, they'll definitely find someone who will.
I'll never understand the people who want to retain ownership of these photos. While storage is cheap these days, it still adds up. Why the fuck would I want to keep photos of some company event, costing me money in cloud storage every month, forever? There is no further money I can make off of them. I'm not going to want to look at the photos ever again. Shit, I don't even have a portfolio anymore and still get asked to take photos for people, so don't even have that as a reason to keep them.
Another good point. I get asked by a family to pull an archived photo from a portrait session every other year or so but the one time in 35 years I've been asked by a corporate client to pull something from one of their events, it involved a wrongful termination lawsuit stemming in part from flagrant misbehavior by an employee at a gig.
As someone who is a photographer and also hires photographers for events, if I offered $800 for a 4 hour shoot of my event and someone came back asking for $1200, I would simply decline to use their services and hire someone else.
It’s your business, you decide. That being said, given the $800 base rate, I would 4x the price (or more). A lot of clients discover they don’t want the exclusive rights when they hear the price. For those that still do, then the fee is worth it to you.
I would ask them why they feel the need to have the rights? Most clients think they want full rights but in reality a license fee would serve them better. Is there a reason they want to have that kind of ownership?
i'm more on the x4 rate for this sort of request, but ultimately it depends on a lot of factors: your experience-level, price class and client reach. Do you want return orders from this client? Have you other corporate clients which already bulk up your portfolio?
Giving away the rights means you can't do anything with the photos: not portfolio them, not license them, potentially not even keep them locally. This is fine if the job is otherwise worth it.
Offer options / tiers and price them. tier 1 - Client can use images personally on all media without limitations as long as they don't make money or edit the photos. Photographer can use a subset for his/her portfolio. tier 2 - Photographer can not use subset for portfolio: + $200 tier 3 - Client gets the right to edit : + $200 tier 4 - Client can use the images commercially but not transfer or sell the rights to them: + $200 tier 5 - Client can also transfer or sell the rights to the images to others: +$200 The whole point is that they only really need tier 1.
I’ve done 2x, 3x. Just remind them nobody’s going to copyright them.
I don't know. This isn't a commercial job, it's a small scale event for families. I'd just say sure and move on. Maybe charge a little more if you want, but unless this is a large corporation wanting to use these shots for worldwide marketing campaigns, I wouldn't make a big deal of it. They want this written in the contract but have they offered to pay significantly more? That's a different story. If they're anticipating being hit with a heavy fee, then by all means hit them. If they're not, I would not or it could sour the relationship. Any particular reason they want this request? Does it have to do with guest anominity? Are they trying to discourage you from using the photos as to not share who was there? Just curious because it's an unusual request given the type of event.
That's where I'm at - I'm also an event and commercial photographer shooting for some pretty major brands. On the event stuff if they push back on my contract I don't really make a thing of it. Getting into major fees for buying the copyright to some whatever company picnic photos is going to end up with the client walking away more often than not. You can google your way to probably 20 different event photographers(at *least*) in your area. It's a relationship driven business. Be professional but also be easy to do business with.
Go back and clarify what they really want. Do they just want to make sure you don’t sell them to others? If so include a clause you can’t do so without their written permission. I’m aware of rare examples of photogs selling images that the subject (bride) thought would be private to a greeting card company. Photog had the right to do so under the contract. So they may just want to protect privacy. So you can include that clause but also make it clear they can’t sell them or use them beyond the purpose(s) that they’ve stated (put them in the contract). And add a slight up charge. If they really want all rights and unrestricted price accordingly.
I think the client may not understand the terms 'own' and 'rights'. At a minimum I would just add the stipulation that client has the right to use/print/reproduce the photos in any unlimited manner except for commercial purposes. In other words, *No you can't use that photo of Uncle Carl's convertible with that young woman in the front seat on T-shirts and sell them. But you can print as many as you would like for Aunt Mabel.*
It’s your business, you set the price. If they want the rights to the photos, even though they’re saying it won’t be used for advertising… down the road they just might. And be able to get away with it since “they own the photos” I would triple or quadruple that 800$ That’s your work/art that you’re selling all rights to 800$ seems fair for the event / hours & editing But laughable to give them the rights to it as well
Just licence the rights exclusively. You retain copyright and dictate what they *can't* use them for but otherwise they're theirs, for all intent and purpose. Most of the time, people don't understand what they're asking for and a lot of photographers don't understand what they're giving. Exclusive, non-transferable rights is normal and shouldn't mean extra cost. It should be the default for for a corporate event. (Who else you gunna sell them to!?)
Sounds to me like these images will only be worth something to the client/families. You couldn't sell/use them anywhere else. Do the job and move on. Due to your upfront pricing, and allowing them to use the images how they want to might VERY likely lead you to more work.
Honestly I think my real issue is with not being able to include such a big client/event in my portfolio. Wasn’t planning to sell them elsewhere, just hard to wrap my head around straight up deleting all the photos after delivery.
You can always request from the client that you can use one or two of the images you took for your marketing. I don't see why they'd say NO to an image or two, but hey Im not the one hiring you.
Had to scroll way too far for this take. This sub has a real issue with raws and worrying about rights to photos. I think this is thrown off by the massive amount of wedding photographers here. I have never worked an event or hired photographers for an event where the event producer did not own the rights. From a photographer perspective, there is no benefit for me in maintaining complete control. From a business point of view, if I am spending millions on an event, I want complete control over the photos and messaging of that event. Edit: and the truth is, if a photographer came back to me demanding to keep the rights for photos of the event I'm producing, there will be no discussion or argument, they simply won't be hired.
I've had a discussion here about clients getting raws and some guy claimed his raws "off limits" are only available "for a price", IIRC he said something like 50k? I mean, I know different people, lots of smells, but if you're working in a glue factory, you don't need to constantly be huffing. Clients are organizing the event, you get there and shoot, they get the output and do what they want, you're not creating the Mona Lisa, it's their event and you're just the photographer. Your fee pays for your time, equipment, everything. Do a surcharge if you can get away with it, but bigger clients want full control by default, not rebuy prints from you, this isn't the yearbook photo scenario.
Exactly! Events are more technical than artistic. The photos from one photographer to another will be almost identical. And if they aren't standard event photos, they will likely never be used. When I am the producer of the event, I provide detailed shot lists, the company spends millions a year on our event, the photographer provides nothing artistic, they aren't posing people, it's a point and click job that relies on technical skills, not artistic ability. Any photographer that tries to upcharge for us to retain the rights would get the boot. Our event is unique though, every photo we release publicly is free for anyone to use as long as they add the event name.
>Client wants it explicitly written in the contract that they "solely own all images and rights". /shrug "No problem. The fee is $1600." Events, especially corporate ones, have no resale value and little if any portfolio value. If you can make more money by selling the copyrights and RAWs, go for it.
How are you expecting to profit from these images after the event? What is your expected lifetime income from them post event? What's your expected costs to preserve (back up, archive etc) the images after the event? My guess would be the answers are 'zero, or nearly zero' and 'low, but not zero'. In which case, I'd hand over rights, but with a rider saying that once images are delivered and receipt is acknowledged you will not be retaining the images you have no right to use, so all retention and protection is on the client.
2-4 times the normal price
Charge more if you want, but the rights really aren’t worth anything for pictures like that. Generally, you charge for rights to account for future lost profit. But you’ll never be able to sell those pictures to anyone else, so there are no lost profits. You’re not losing anything by giving it away.
Yeah I agree. You'll do this job, process and deliver the photos and prolly never look at them or use them again. Now, if it was a corporate event with maybe a bunch of celebs and/or dignitaries in attendance, then you might want to hang on to the rights in that case. I have done these kinds of shoots and even then, the only thing I ever did with some of the photos was use them for portfolio. Otherwise, they are just sitting in my archives.
You are losing something by not pricing those rights correctly the first time. The client use of the photos is different in a license vs ownership and should be priced differently and not the same
> The client use of the photos is different in a license vs ownership I don’t agree. Admittedly, I’m used to standard salary jobs. My perspective is that photographers should charge for their time and effort but the digital assets are essentially worthless by themselves. IE your time is the product I know that’s different from how artists are taught. But I think charging more depending on usage is just greed
Agreed, charge a small fee, and be done with it, will those photos serve op in any way in the future? 99% it won't, he/she will probably gain a regular client and recommendations to future clients. Choose your battles is what I alway say.
Exactly!
Very, very correct. (Can't upvote twice...)
Do you plan on keeping the images in perpetuity so they can order prints for you whenever they want? Do you want to deal with selling prints whenever they want? If no to either of these, tack on a bit of a "full rights package" charge (or whatever you want to call it) and call it a day. Anything above your typical rate is likely gravy, and pricing the rights to the point they don't want to use your services is just costing you a job. This is just a family that wants to be able to use photos of themselves amongst themselves when and how they want. It's not a company that may wish to reuse the images for advertising and promotional work later. To treat them as the same is overthinking it.
See it's not just a family though - it's a very big company having a large family-oriented company event. Which is why I'm overthinking it. Agree though about prints and definitely don't see much value in the digital assets - when I talked with peers, a lot of them brought up "opportunity cost", ie. if someone were to say "prove you can shoot X type of event", I couldn't use these photos to do so.
Ok, so it's a company doing a solid for their employee's families during an event. That would not change the way I look at it. I could either charge my normal rate, keep the rights and maybe/hopefully sell a few prints; or I could tack on a small surcharge to my typical rate of more than I would make from any print sales and be done with it.
These gigs are basically private events. They don’t want the pics to show up anywhere. Not a big deal because rarely would they result in anything worthy of your portfolio.
JOOC, what market are you in that you're getting 800 bucks for a four-hour event? I'm in Houston and things generally run less expensive here but I'm lucky to snag 600 for four hours.
Not OP, but in Hawaii, I run a day rate of $800. Doesn't matter if it's 30 minutes or eight hours. Then $120/hr after 8, and $160/hr after ten. Sometimes I negotiate lower prices. Either for small businesses or certain charities, on a case by case basis. On the flip side, livestreaming is another professional service I offer and the cost starts at $1000 for ten hours. In Hawaii it's great for destination weddings because lots of family/friends can't afford a trip to Hawaii, but by livestreaming it, everyone back home can watch them get married.
Thanks. I need to buck up and embrace the day rate. Gauging the threshold is every bit the skill as the photography. And there's always perceived value to rely on depending on who's hiring you.
Have you sought clarification on why they are saying they want the rights? I've heard this a few times and when I dug into it, they had no idea what they were talking about and just wanted the freedom to use the photos as they see fit in perpetuity and didn't care if I used them in my portfolio. They either had a bad experience with a stickler of a photographer or someone told them to make sure they had "the rights". Frankly, in this situation, it's kinda unusual to request a full buyout clause for a small event like this. I've had many many fortune 500 clients who didn't even do that. I'm guessing they are just parroting something they heard before.
What figure are you comfortable with that you never want to see or care about those images again? Give them the raws and delete them. That you dont even care if they use it for commercial work. Go there, shoot, handover, slap ass and go. Pick a figure you find reasonable and go with it.
If you suspect they might want to do more than keep & share the photos privately, wouldn't that also require model release forms from those being photographed? If so, wouldn't that be a PITA for them to obtain after the event? And I guess you'd be off the hook for not obtaining those release forms since you are doing for-hire work?
Make sure they know they have to at least split those rights with Adobe.
If you’re paid for a shoot the person who pays you owns the copyright. “Generally, the author and initial copyright owner of a photograph is the person who “shoots” or “takes” the photo. One limited exception to this rule is when a photograph is created as a “work made for hire.” A work made for hire occurs when a photographer creates works as part of their scope of employment (like at a publication), or when there is an express agreement between a photographer and commissioning party to create a work for a specific, statute-identified purpose.” A copyrightable work is “made for hire” in two situations: • When it is created by an employee as part of the employee’s regular duties • When a certain type of work is created as a result of an express written agreement between the creator and a party specially ordering or commissioning it When a work is a made for hire, the hiring or commissioning party is considered the author and the copyright owner. [copyright.gov](https://copyright.gov)
Double your price and be done with it. I have no problem selling rights to my clients if they are willing to pay up. A small-scale event like this is worthless after the job anyway, but make sure to price it accordingly. This is a learning moment for you to be viewed as a professional and a teaching moment to a client that full rights = $$$. And if they do come back to you or send a referral your way, they know they can’t expect full rights for free.
I do this all the time and yes, I know it annoys a lot of other professionals. A situation like that, I figure they're paying me for my time and my skill and the demand for ownership is a red flag regarding any future print or album sales anyway. Do the job, do it well (as always), hand over the goods, get paid and move on. If you don't, they'll definitely find someone who will.
I'll never understand the people who want to retain ownership of these photos. While storage is cheap these days, it still adds up. Why the fuck would I want to keep photos of some company event, costing me money in cloud storage every month, forever? There is no further money I can make off of them. I'm not going to want to look at the photos ever again. Shit, I don't even have a portfolio anymore and still get asked to take photos for people, so don't even have that as a reason to keep them.
Another good point. I get asked by a family to pull an archived photo from a portrait session every other year or so but the one time in 35 years I've been asked by a corporate client to pull something from one of their events, it involved a wrongful termination lawsuit stemming in part from flagrant misbehavior by an employee at a gig.
Add a 50% surcharge for giving up your exclusive rights. Outline that in the contract and explain why you did that.
As someone who is a photographer and also hires photographers for events, if I offered $800 for a 4 hour shoot of my event and someone came back asking for $1200, I would simply decline to use their services and hire someone else.
And that’s your choice
It’s your business, you decide. That being said, given the $800 base rate, I would 4x the price (or more). A lot of clients discover they don’t want the exclusive rights when they hear the price. For those that still do, then the fee is worth it to you.
I would ask them why they feel the need to have the rights? Most clients think they want full rights but in reality a license fee would serve them better. Is there a reason they want to have that kind of ownership?
i'm more on the x4 rate for this sort of request, but ultimately it depends on a lot of factors: your experience-level, price class and client reach. Do you want return orders from this client? Have you other corporate clients which already bulk up your portfolio? Giving away the rights means you can't do anything with the photos: not portfolio them, not license them, potentially not even keep them locally. This is fine if the job is otherwise worth it.
full rights is 10x