Image licenses

[Jonny Gawler]

For years I have licensed my images quite strictly

--

How do I not get exploited but still offer a 'usable offer' for low to middle end commercial clients - hotels - small companies etc


Basically my thinking is you can use this image for five years 'unrestricted' given that..

-no distribution to third parties (ie the company that supplied the hotel with flooring/furniture whatever)
-Should your company double its employees ie expand massively the license should be renegotiated

Should I forget restricted licenses and just up my dayrate?


S

payment per use per media per time. ok we all know and understand the how and the why (short version: work-for-hire makes the industry unsustainable). fine. but standing by the principles that we’ve basically been sold by the industry can be expensive. the choice, as you’ve said, is:
choice number a> stick to the principle because you know it’s right and – as the more vocal advisors will tell you – it’s what’s best for everyone
choice number b> make a practical decision based on what’s best for you and your business which depends on a number of factors, not least your clients attitudes and budgets... and then hate yourself.

can we agree that abstract advice from individuals, sometimes representing organisations, is often designed to further their interests rather than the guy with the practical problem who’s asking for the help?
back to sam’s specifics. it sounds like the work you’re talking about is for clients who don’t understand licensing, or they understand it but don’t like it. that’s the way it is. their choice might be pay you 500 and then have this licensing hassle or pay some other guy 500 and not have to worry about it. trying to apply any advice from other peoples’ areas to your issue is only going to make you feel bad. no amount of “explanation” will turn your thousand quid client into a thirteen grand one, and no amount of internationally-known-creative-marketing-consulting will make a client who’s prepared to pay thirteen grand for a restricted licence pay double.

so, as you've already realised, we end up at choice number c> find clients whose budgets fit your needs in an area where the business competition is a bit less... competition-y.

[Jonny Gawler]

If it's 500 for you time & expenses, then they will feel you have been paid in full.
If it's 500 for a Licence fee to use your images - and you clear state what the Usage is, that that fee relates to - then they should have no problems understanding that asking for more will cost them more.

i love that you're getting clients with enough money to pay what you need to come up with the work that you do, and i love that you have the energy to spread the word about how and why that works, but i'm really interested in moving this discussion on.

i believe there are a lot of people in a similar situation to the one sam outlined in his original post. if the market you're trying to do business in will not tolerate a restricted licence model, what then? you can italic and bold until you're blue in the face – if other photographers are charging 500 for work-for-hire for that job, or the client will not employ you because the restricted licence doesn't give them the uses they need for their 500 quid, you are faced with a difficult choice. stand by your principles and see the other guy get the 500 quid, or work on the terms the client requires and know that you sold out cheap.

[JoeKitchen]

i love that you're getting clients with enough money to pay what you need to come up with the work that you do, and i love that you have the energy to spread the word about how and why that works, but i'm really interested in moving this discussion on.

i believe there are a lot of people in a similar situation to the one sam outlined in his original post. if the market you're trying to do business in will not tolerate a restricted licence model, what then? you can italic and bold until you're blue in the face – if other photographers are charging 500 for work-for-hire for that job, or the client will not employ you because the restricted licence doesn't give them the uses they need for their 500 quid, you are faced with a difficult choice. stand by your principles and see the other guy get the 500 quid, or work on the terms the client requires and know that you sold out cheap.

Would Tiffany's sell a diamond ring at the same price as Sears just to stay competitive with them?  No!  Why?  Because they produce great work and they know that it is worth much more.  I am sure they get plenty of ladies asking for outrageous discounts and conditions of sale, but I do not see them changing their prices just to make the sale.  Doing that would degrade their reputation and desire, and would force them to produce a lesser quality of work due to lower profits.  

Produce the best you can with nothing held back, shoot for the clients who respect your work, say no to those who dont.

[Morgan_Moore]

Ash  -my quotes are always based on Use - not work for hire

But bands of use for example rather than specifics

Banded use..

web only X years

or

web brochure and local press advertising, X years

Specific use..

Image XXX at 400PX banner on homepage, image YYY as 100X300 upright on about us page

Or brochure 2010 cover, a4 size

----

I initially learned about licensing over a decade ago when I was working and my 'for the local press' images started appearing in brochures reports - because my photo shoots were exceeding the clients expectations - I felt exploited and nailed down my T+C

Those changes of use occured about the time my digital images actually became sharp enough for using in a glossy environment - shooting D1 offers a lot of protection !

The bottom line I think is to charge as much as you can in whatever method possible and quality work will push what you can charge up

So upping the game will up the fee - simple