Got a phone call from a business, here in Toronto, looking to hire a photographer. The caller said that they’ve never hired a photographer before and admitted they weren’t sure “how it works”.
The company wanted executive portraits for their web site. Business portraits are one of the most common requests corporate photographers get. There are many uses for such pictures and, of course, smart businesses like to update their photos every couple of years or so.
I suggested the easiest way to do the photography, how the pictures could be delivered, and gave an approximate cost for the required usage. That last bit, about price depending on usage, caught the caller by surprise.
Aha! Licensing.
Here’s the deal about licensing:
A photographer is running a business. The purpose of every business is to make money. Put together, this means that the photographer is trying to make money from their business.
The best way to make money is to license the use of a picture rather than just selling it outright. Yes, a photographer can make money selling pictures outright if the fee is high enough. But in most cases, few clients would be willing to pay such a high fee because there’s simply no reason to do it. Why pay for more than you need?
Let’s talk software.
Almost every piece of software comes with a license. In most cases, the license allows the user to run the software on one computer. Why license the software and not sell it outright? Licensing allows the software company to make money and stay in business.
But imagine there was no licensing. Is it fair that a person, who buys one copy of the software for their personal use on a home computer, should pay the same fee as a business, that installs the same software on three dozen computers to run their company?
Back to photography.
Photographers can make money by licensing pictures. Two reasons why:
(i) Licensing allows the photo fee to correspond to the value of that picture. More value = higher fee.
(ii) A picture might be relicensed again in the future, which should mean new revenue to the photographer.
For example:
Client A (an insurance broker) wants a portrait that will be used only on his business card.
Client B (a real estate agent) wants a portrait that will used on her business card, in her sales sheets, in her monthly newsletter, on her web site, on local billboards throughout the year, and used as media handouts.
Should these portraits have the same licensing fee?
If yes, then should the fee be low to accommodate Client A’s limited use (and have the photographer lose money to Client B), or, should the fee be high fee to account for Client B’s multiple uses (and be over-priced for Client A) ?
Even though the portraits may be the same, photographically-speaking, licensing allows for a lower fee to Client A, due to his lower usage, and a higher fee to Client B, to account for the higher use and higher value of her portrait.
Remember, like all businesses, a photographer has to make money, and charging appropriately is the only way.
Photographers will license any right a client needs. After all, more licensing means more income, and that’s the point of business.
Some clients will ask for “all rights”. In almost all cases, “all rights” is never really needed, and it would be very expensive. “All rights” includes such things as: editorial reproduction rights in all publications around the world, TV broadcast rights in all countries, worldwide commercial rights, resale and relicensing rights, merchandising rights, electronic and web rights, and more. Is it worth paying for all those rights when you don’t need most of them?
Licensing generally depends on three factors:
i) How the pictures will be used (eg. in a magazine, on a web site, in a TV commercial);
ii) Where the pictures will be used (eg. locally, nationally, worldwide);
iii) How long the pictures will be used (eg. once, one month, one year, forever).
It’s not as complicated or as difficult as it might sound. Talk with your photographer. They’d be happy to work out a license to fit your exact needs.
