The Basics of Licensing Wildlife Photos
Licensing your wildlife photography is one of the easier ways to get started in the business, but you have to understand how licensing works in order to make it work for you.
There are almost limitless ways you can license your work. Every business under the sun needs photos for its collateral. Brochures, websites, social media channels, annual reports, videos, advertising, and fundraising campaigns - the list goes on and on.
When you put your work on a stock site like Getty or iStock, you are licensing your photography. But you really have no control over how much money you make from the transaction. The prices are all pre-determined by the agency and the photographer always gets the short end of the stick. Many of them offer just pennies on the dollar.Stock websites have their places in photo sales, but it's a misconception that this is where you earn the majority of your income as a wildlife photographer. Recently, one of my images was licensed through Getty and I made a whopping .44 cents. CENTS. Do you know what Getty sold it for? $375.
You also have no control over who licenses your photo. On the surface, that doesn't sound like a big deal - money is money. However, this means that one of your images may also be used by an organization or publication that doesn't align with you and your work. For example, the monarch butterfly is endangered and plummeting toward extinction. I would be terribly upset if a pesticide company licensed one of my monarch butterfly photos for use on any of their materials.
Now, to be clear, the only photos I put on Getty or iStock for licensing are the photos that I otherwise wouldn't sell at all. They're my third-tier photos that are good enough to have my name on them, but not so great that I keep them exclusive for a profitable sale. Essentially, they serve as my sort of "garage sale" images - if they make any sort of money, I'm happy. I use stock agencies as part of my overall pitching and marketing strategy, which I'll cover in a separate article.
Licensing through stock agencies can be lucrative, which Jared covered in a previous article. Filling the gaps in their content means that you may be one of the few photographers who has an image someone is looking for. But it's a volume game. Long gone are the days of making $75,000 a year from stock photo sales.
Licensing your work can still be lucrative if you know how this side of the business works. Unlike selling prints, in which you set the price based on your own numbers, licensing works by taking into consideration several factors:
Size of the image (pixels, inches, quarter page, full page, web banner, etc.)
Term of license (one month, three months, one year, in perpetuity, etc.)
Distribution locations (local, regional, national, international, etc.)
Circulation (subscriber numbers, web visitors, follower count, etc.)
Usage (web, brochure, book, magazine cover, film or tv, social media, etc.)
Exclusivity (can only they use it, and if so, for how long?)
Each one of these attributes is part of determining the price. Every photo editor under the sun knows how this works and expects you to know how this works. Sometimes they have their own fee that is non-negotiable, but the majority of the time that fee is based around these attributes, as well.
Size of the Image
Before the internet ruled the world, image sizes were standardized by how they were used on a printed page, be it a newspaper, magazine, or another type of publication. Despite so many additional sizes available today, much of the world of licensing photos revolves around those standard sizes.
Fortunately, most of our digital gallery systems have a way for clients to download images at certain pixel and resolution sizes, which is helpful because it means you don't have to resize your photo every time you make a sale. Stock websites do this with your photos automatically, as well.
Many times, photo editors will buy whatever size of your photo fits their needs best. When they license your work, they are almost certainly going to crop it, color correct it their way, manipulate it, add text over it, or do whatever they need to do with that photo to fit their needs. However, how they end up using it is the image size that determines the price.
Jared recently had one of his images licensed by Our State magazine. While he shot it in landscape orientation, the photo editor decided to make a vertical crop from the center of the image so it could be used as a full-page vertical image. Thus, he received the price for a full-page image. If that editor had instead used it as a half-page image, he would have received payment for a half-page price. If they had used his photo in landscape orientation to cover two whole pages (you'll often hear this referred to as a "double truck" when you work with editors), then he would have received compensation for a two-page image.
Term of the License
Client needs are all over the place when it comes to how long a client wants to use an image. Some clients might want to use a photo for just a few months, others might want to use it in perpetuity. Either way, it's important to know that just because someone licenses a photo doesn't automatically mean that they get to use it forever.
Personally, I encourage clients to license my photos for a minimum of one year. It's a lot easier for me to manage photos on a yearly basis than it is on a monthly basis. I don't want to keep track of hundreds of monthly licensing agreements. Plus, a longer-term license means a higher fee for me.
When the image is licensed, I put a note of it on my Google calendar for 30 days before the end of their licensing term. Then, when it pops up on my calendar almost a year later, I send the photo editor a quick email to remind them that their license is ending, but I'd be happy to extend it for another year for just $XXXX. Typically, I offer a small discount (somewhere in the 15-20% off range) over what they paid the year before if they would like to re-up the license. About 70% of my clients take me up on that offer.
When their second year comes up, I offer them the same price they paid for their second year or an "upgrade" to a license in perpetuity for a one-time flat fee. This helps them because they don't have to worry about violating the terms of our agreement, and it helps me because I don't have to worry about the constant management of licensing terms for that particular photo and client anymore. This also helps me sell them on licensing future photos in perpetuity, as well. After all, if they have been using some of my work for two years, and then upgrade, they'd be better off just licensing it that way from the start.
This is my personal preference when it comes to licensing my photos when I'm working directly with clients. I like to make it easier for them to keep using my images, and I like spending less of my time managing my agreements. Every photographer comes up with their own system for how they run their licensing agreements, but it's my experience that the simpler the system, the better for everyone.
Distribution Locations and Circulation
The circulation size and the geographical specifics are also big considerations in licensing fees. A regional publication is going to be charged less than a national publication, which will be charged less than an international publication.
General speaking, geographical locations for distribution are broken down as:
Local - This is usually something that is only for the town, city, or county of interest
State - For a use that has an audience of a whole state, like a tourism magazine for example
Regional - Think of this as a large regional group of several states
National - The entire country
International - All over the place
Once you have the location determined, the next part is the circulation size or the number of items being printed. A newspaper or magazine that is regional and has a circulation size of 25,000 is charged a different price for the photo than a national publication with a circulation size of 500,000.
When it comes to online or digital use, the emphasis is more on the size of the image and how it is used so the geographical consideration isn't really a factor in those cases.
Usage of Your Photos
How an organization uses your work can greatly impact how much money you make from the license. In fact, this consideration can often mean the difference between a few hundred dollars for one photo or several thousands of dollars for the same photo.
Each way they use your photo is an additional licensing fee, and it's not uncommon to put together a package deal for an editor or organization that gives them unlimited use. I try to go this route whenever possible. Again, that's because I would rather be out in the field photographing bears than behind my computer micromanaging my licensing agreements.
For example, I licensed an image that was accompanying an article on a website. It was the feature image of the article, and the editorial team also wanted to use that image on their Facebook page and Instagram account. Because it's standard practice in the publishing world to pay a fee for each use (also referred to as "placement"), I earned a licensing fee for the feature image, another fee for use on Facebook, and another fee for use on Instagram.
To make it easy for everyone and try and make a bit more money from the sale, I packaged up a price for all three uses and gave them a one-year license. Then, I gave them the option to upgrade their social media use in perpetuity. I earned the additional income and they now have an image their social media team can legally use on Facebook and Instagram for as long as they'd like. The photos for social media were what we call "evergreen," which means they are more universally appealing images that can illustrate many social media posts for years to come, not just posts related to the one feature article.
They did not buy the feature photo version in perpetuity, though, so if they decide to use that image again on their website or for anything other than social media they will have to re-license the image with me.
Wildlife photography is used in myriad ways, and the options for how your work can be licensed are endless.
Some examples:
Signs in parks that educate about animals
Brochures and maps
Annual report covers
Hotel artwork
Decor for professional buildings and conference rooms
Corporate websites
Email marketing
Textbooks and academic journals
The sky really is the limit when it comes to how your work may be licensed and put out into the world. One of my photographs is printed large-scale and hangs inside of virtually every Delta airlines jetway ramp. I cannot tell you how much I love to board a plane and know that, like me, hundreds of thousands of people see my photograph every day.
Exclusivity
Whether or not the licensor has exclusive use of your photo can also make a huge difference in your earnings. When you license something exclusively, you are agreeing that you will not license that image to anyone else for the entire term of the licensing agreement.
When you agree to an exclusive arrangement, you're forgoing income for as long as the agreement states, and that needs to be factored into your price. Clients who want to use an image exclusively usually understand that it comes with a higher price. Again, this is an area where only you can determine the price for this additional benefit.
In the licensing agreement I send to clients, I have a clause that says that I still retain the right to use that image on my website, even if they buy exclusive rights. If they want me to remove it from my website, I am happy to do so... for an additional fee.
When you join various stock agencies, they often will offer you a higher percentage of the commission if you agree to make that image exclusive to their agency. You'll have to decide if that is something that works for you. As I mentioned earlier, I only put specific tiers of photography up in the stock agencies I use.
For my strategy in how I use stock photo websites, I don't want to be exclusive. The difference in earnings isn't enough for me to be loyal to one agency. Most stock agencies also have subscription plans that allow their clients to download as much as they want for a monthly fee. While this is user-friendly for the clients of the stock agency, it means less money in my pocket. Thus, the images I put into the stock rotation are non-exclusive. This way, if one organization always uses Getty and another always uses Alamy, my images are available in both and have a higher likelihood of being found and licensed.
Both Jared and I save our top-tier photographs for licensing to the clients with whom we have already created relationships. The relationship component is important, because they know they're always selecting from our best work and that they have access to photos that they can't (and neither can their competitors) find anywhere else.
It's been my experience that many photo editors (who are often people who have been working photographers themselves) prefer to license directly from the photographer. It makes their lives easier, but they also know that many of the agencies take the majority of the profit. Many times, photo editors have been willing to advocate for a higher price with their bosses on my behalf simply because we've created that longer-term relationship. It benefits them, too, to make sure our relationship is a two-way street.
Options for Licensing Photos That Aren't Stock Agencies
Photographers looking to go pro often make the mistake of going big right out of the gate, trying to land photos in the biggest publications that give them the most recognizable bylines. I like to home-in on the smaller publications, even though I've had my work published and exhibited nationally and internationally. Local, state, and regional magazines and organizations are often the ones that pay the best rates for your photography.
For one, they aren't so large a publication that they've established no-budge rules on what they pay for visuals. Larger media organizations often have payment caps and they are often smaller than you think. A few years ago, photographer and author John Harrington took a look at rates paid by larger magazines. In 1980, an assignment for TIME magazine came with a day rate (a term for the flat fee a photographer earns for an 8-hour work day) of $350 per day. Adjusting for inflation and looking at the rates paid just a few years ago, that same assignment earns about $191. In other words, bigger isn't always better!
Smaller magazines give you the bylines that larger publications and organizations want to see before they work with you, too, whether that's for an assignment or directly with your archive of images.
You're not the only one putting your foot in the door, either. Photo editors at smaller organizations often move around during their careers. Having a relationship with them is one of the ways you can easily move your way up the ladder to a larger roster of publications and clients, and being a reliable photographer who always delivers is helpful when you're pitching for assignments.
Larger places often take a longer time to pay. It's become longer and longer over the years, and it's something that every freelancer I know is frustrated with. After all, it's hard to create and stick to a budget when your pay days are determined by the whims of the accounting departments of your clients.
Sometimes you get paid when the image is published or you get a NET-90 agreement. Some clients pay immediately, too, just as if they bought it right off your website. It really depends on the organization and their accounting practices, though it's my experience that you can negotiate this to an extent, as well.
Payment when your work is published is fairly standard. That means, however, that you may get paid in two weeks or it may be 6+ months. Once, I waited 9 months after an assignment to be paid for my work.
Corporate clients, non-profits, NGOs, and some publications will sometimes offer a NET-90 payment arrangement. You submit your invoice, and you will be paid 90 days later. Even more frustrating is when companies will now allow you to opt for earlier payment, like NET-30, but they take a percentage of the invoice off as a "convenience fee" for paying you ahead of their preferred time period.
This particular trend really grinds my gears. Wouldn't it be nice if we could pay our mortgage or our gas bill on our own timeline? Or tell the cashier at Target that we're going to take our bags home now, but will come back in 90 days and pay it in full?
I have three corporate clients that do this, so I started a "convenience" program of my own, flipping their script. I now write up my invoice, but tack on a separate line item for 25% of the total sale. If they pay it within NET-30, they just pay the regular invoice as agreed. But if they'd like to stick to their own terms of NET-90, they have to pay the extra 25% I've added for the "convenience" of letting their accounts payable team decide my pay day.
Spoiler alert: every single one of them has managed to make NET-30 work despite previously telling me that there was just NO way it would ever be able to happen.
Some suggestions for smaller publications or clients to start licensing your work:
The magazine of your state park system
Your state DNR magazine and offices
Local tourism bureaus
The Chamber of Commerce in your area
State and Regional travel magazines
Tourism websites
City/town publications (e.g., Atlanta Magazine, Mpls. St. Paul Magazine, etc.)
"Friends of" groups for your state and local parks
Your local Fish and Wildlife offices
Wildlife organizations like Ducks Unlimited, Whitetails Unlimited, etc.
Once you start looking around, you'll see these smaller publications and opportunities everywhere you go.
Pricing Your Licensing Fees
Many publications and organizations have a set fee they pay for different sizes and types of work. But with so many factors for consideration, it's sometimes easier to use a few tricks of the trade to get you to a fair and reasonable price.
Two of the more popular ways to price photo licenses are with Cradoc fotoQuote or using the Getty Image Licensing Calculator.
Cradoc fotoQuote is a piece of standalone software that's considered a standard pricing software throughout the world of photo licensing. It's about $150 and you buy it just once. You input the information (size, location, use, etc) and it will provide you with a price. fotoQuote also comes with a built-in licensing agreement creator, how to price out an assignment, quoting forms and templates, and a handful of other perks. Photo editors and most art directors are familiar with fotoQuote (and many use it themselves).
If you use PhotoShelter like Jared and I do, the licensing pricing features are built into their site plans and will do the work for you. PhotoShelter is the only photo gallery-type website we have been able to find that allows clients to license your images directly from the site, and automate the process if you'd like to do so.
Another popular option is the Getty Images calculator. Similarly to fotoQuote, you enter the relevant information and it will give you an industry standard price for your sale.
The challenge with both of these options is that they tend to err on the side of the photographer and not the reality of market. In my experience, the prices from fotoQuote are about 20% higher than what most clients are actually paying. With Getty, it's closer to 30% higher than the realistic amount to expect from a client.
All said and done, both are good options to give you an idea of where to start your pricing if you're licensing your work on your own instead of with an online stock agency.
You should also make sure that all of the licensing terms are agreed upon up front. Contracts are everything in selling your work. The Professional Photographers of America (PPA) has some templates for contracts for their members, and other online shops also offer options to purchase. I had an attorney who specializes in working with artists and photographers review my contracts after I bought them, as a way to make sure they were customized to suit my business in my state, an extra step you may also wish to consider as you move into licensing your work, too.