I’ve been approached by the developer of a nature app to use my photos of two species of birds for their app. They’ve asked my expectations for licensing. I sell prints occasionally but have never licensed a photo for a use like this and I have no idea what to charge. I don’t care that much about the money - licensing two photos is not exactly going to impact my lifestyle after all. I just think it would be neat to have my photos used in the app. But they are using it for a commercial purpose so they should pay something. I definitely don’t want to be greedy and I’m not a professional, but I also don’t want to harm actual professional photographers by undercutting the market. Any suggestions on what an appropriate range is for a licensing fee in this context would be much appreciated. Thanks.
Suggested fee for photo licensing?
- Thread starter Ben C
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Interesting comment. Pros will appreciate your “not undercutting “ them, but it seems to me that being offered compensation for permitting the use of your product means you ARE a professional. Perhaps a new pro, but a pro nevertheless . Too many folks conflate being a pro only with earning one’s living through photography activities.
Whether you consider yourself a “pro” or not, accepting money in exchange for a license does in fact put you in direct competition with those who you consider to be pros. Thinking about the impact you might have on the already difficult to navigate profession is something seldom done and I applaud you for it.
vito
New member
It's definitely a balancing act. You want the exposure, and man, wouldn't it be cool to have your photo out there? But if you don't value your work, no one will. I'll usually start the conversation with "What's your budget?" That being said, I'm usually in the range of $500 - $1000 a year per image. I have yet to find a store that accepts "Exposure dollars"
ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) may have guidelines for this? However, you would need to be a member to access them.
Paul Grecian
Member
I think a lot more information about the app and exactly how the images were to be used would be needed to make a reasoned suggestion about licensing.
Appreciate the comments. While I suppose you could say I'm a professional if I get paid to license my images, the IRS would disagree and still classify it as a hobby for me. But semantics aside, I agree with the comment that if I don't value my images, who will? That's certainly part of the reason why I don't want to give them away even though it would be cool to have them used in the app. (It's also why I don't enter most photo contests - because the terms and conditions often give the contest organizer a perpetual, royalty-free license to use your image for any purpose, and I think that's wrong - most contests aren't really contests, they're tools to gather free advertising/marketing resources for the future.)
Back to the question at hand - the app is one that identifies bird calls detected by a remote microphone, so sort of like Merlin but you don't need to be there. The pictures are just used as representations of the species whose calls are being detected. There's no attribution or watermark on the photo and it's not downloadable. The species they have asked for are from Ecuador, so even though the app is available in the US these particular images won't be displayed frequently. I think that's a factor that will limit how much they're willing to spend.
Back to the question at hand - the app is one that identifies bird calls detected by a remote microphone, so sort of like Merlin but you don't need to be there. The pictures are just used as representations of the species whose calls are being detected. There's no attribution or watermark on the photo and it's not downloadable. The species they have asked for are from Ecuador, so even though the app is available in the US these particular images won't be displayed frequently. I think that's a factor that will limit how much they're willing to spend.
Paul Grecian
Member
I feel it's irrelevant whether you're a professional or not, the value of the images is what matters in this case. However, based on your description of the project and the state of photo stock, I'd me surprised if anything over $50-$100 per image is acceptable to them.
That’s pretty much in the range that I would have expected. I emailed them to ask what they normally pay and they said they license in large quantities through a stock service so their cost is less then $3/image. They acknowledged that was low and they weren’t expecting to pay that little outside of stock but clearly they aren’t going to want to pay much more than $50-100. I’d be ok with that amount personally but I’m considering asking them to donate one of their devices to a nonprofit nature center I used to be involved with instead. Checking with the nature center first to see if they would want it.
I've donated a few images to nature centers and conservancy organizations. One I did so in exchange for a year's membership (about 50 bucks). These are organizations I support and was happy to help.
As for undercutting "professionals" that's just life. I do woodworking and people undercut me all the time. I don't get angry about it. Someone else was willing to work for less than I am willing to work. That just business.
As for the app being developed, I'd just be sure in the license agreement they cannot re-sell your image other than as a part of their application. What's a fair price? Just like anything, an object is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay. Quote them a price that you think is reasonable for the images and use. They will say yes or no.
Jeff
As for undercutting "professionals" that's just life. I do woodworking and people undercut me all the time. I don't get angry about it. Someone else was willing to work for less than I am willing to work. That just business.
As for the app being developed, I'd just be sure in the license agreement they cannot re-sell your image other than as a part of their application. What's a fair price? Just like anything, an object is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay. Quote them a price that you think is reasonable for the images and use. They will say yes or no.
Jeff
Have you considered using instead a creative commons scheme?
If money is not an issue, you should be rewarded by acknowledging your work and your rights.
That is what I would do.
Creative Commons Licensing.
If money is not an issue, you should be rewarded by acknowledging your work and your rights.
That is what I would do.
Creative Commons Licensing.
BrianSmall
Active member
I would accept nothing less than $100....................and I am a full-time pro making my living from bird photography.
If the organization is a non-profit, then I'd simply donate the images, but place a commercial value of $500 for each image for tax purposes. If it's a for profit company, then I'd look to commercial stock companies (e.g. Shutterstock, iPhoto) for examples of how similar images are priced, then perhaps discount those prices by say 10-20% to make it attractive. Ultimately, you need to ask yourself how you'd feel if you were turned down by the organization because you overcharged.
Paul Grecian
Member
I doubt you can self place a commercial value on images for taxes, otherwise we'd all be giving our work away and valuing it for the tax deduction. I know I can't donate framed work and take more than material costs.
Au contraire. It's no different than placing a value on used clothing donated to charities, as long as you use comps on which to base your value.
Paul Grecian
Member
I believe it is very different from donating cloths. When an artist donates their own work it is considered a self-created asset, they cannot take a donation tax deduction based on their time or perceived value of the work whether there is a sales history or not. Material costs can be deducted only. Do a Google search on artists donating their own work. I wish it were otherwise, it's actually a very unfair system. My former IRS-employed accountant made this very clear to me.