With rare exceptions stock photographs are not sold, but licensed. This means the photographer, as creator of the image, retains the copyright of the image but grants permission – a license – for it to be used. The ‘buyer’ is therefore purchasing a license to use the image, not the image itself or full rights to it.

The terms of licenses may vary slightly between photographers and stock photo agencies but broadly speaking there are two types of licence; Rights Managed and Royalty Free.

Rights Managed Licensing (RM)

An image marketed under an RM license has to be licensed, and payed for, on a use by use basis. The terms of the license will cover the nature and scope of the intended usage which will determine the fee for the license. The usual criteria involved in determining fees include the type of use, i.e. editorial or commercial, the intended media of publication, geographic territory and time period for the use of the photograph.

Once an RM image has been licensed any further use of the image, even by the same person or organisation that licensed it initially, requires the negotiation and purchase of a new license to extend the buyer’s use of the image.

Royalty Free Licenses (RF)

Royalty Free licenses are more akin to buying the image, although even an RF image is still usually the copyright of the photographer who created it or the production house that commissioned it. As there is relatively little control over the end use of RF images they must be legally ‘safe’ meaning the photographer has any required model and property releases.

From a buyer’s perspective, however, an RF image offers the simplicity of ‘owning’ the image in that once the RF license has been purchased the image may be used repeatedly, by the same purchaser, within any terms of the license. RF license terms may restrict usage based on volume, redistribution and sensitive issues, for example.

A royalty free image is usually therefore priced simply on the resolution size that is required.  The term ‘royalty free’ comes, I think, from the convenience this model offers buyers in not needing to negotiate the fee – royalty – for the use of the image. This makes using RF photography both relatively quick and easy for buyers compared to negotiating RM licenses. However, it has led to a confusing misnomer that unfortunately leads many people to assume RF images are ‘free’. This is not the case!

Extensions and Exlusivity

Within these two broad categories of photo licensing there can be ‘extras’ offered to enhance the license. For RF images ‘extended licenses’ have become common, particularly in the microstock sector, which allow a greater use of the image commercially for instance allowing larger print runs or the use of the image in products for resale. This extension of the permitted usage of the image obviously means a higher fee.

The greater control over image use that RM licensing allows permits the granting of exclusive rights to the use of an image, for instance in a particular territory, which can appeal to some commercial users and be potentially very lucrative for photographers.

The Pros and Cons

Which license model is best? This is really a question that needs to be considered seperately from the perspective of the users and creators of imagery, and will also vary for different types of images.

For Photographers

Quite possibly you’ll never know if you’ve made the right choice of license in terms of an image’s potential earnings. In many cases the need for releases and a general absence from any possible legal headaches will automatically put many images in the RM sector where their use can be controlled.

For images that are commercially ‘safe’ a choice has to be made; once an image has been marketed under one license it cannot generally be changed. This is especially so for RF licenses; once an image has been sold under an RF license it cannot really be offered with any sort of management or exclusivity.

A good rule of thumb starting point is to consider more run of the mill generic shots for RF and images that are more unique and / or harder to reproduce as RM material. The logic behind this stands on the traditional idea that RM images can command higher fees, for advertising use for example, and shouldn’t therefore be made available as RF where the fee is effectively capped and the images worth degraded once it is in circulation and looses any potential exclusivity ‘bonus’.

While this is still valid reasoning it should also be remembered that RM images can often sell for lower fees, to editorial markets for example, than an RF license would achieve. On the flip side this can sometimes mean RF images are priced out of potential editorial sales! So it becomes clear how choosing a license often isn’t an easy task!

For Photo Buyers

Users of stock photography also have choices to make in terms image licenses.

Royalty Free images offer the convenience of simplicity, easy access with instant downloads and easy to understand pricing. However, they can have drawbacks. The generic look of much RF stock photography can be inappropriate for many uses and popular images even become too familiar from over use. A major concern for some users is the innability to know the history of  RF images use or control potential future use; a situation that can lead to competitors using the same image or an image’s value being tarnished through a sensitive use.

Rights Managed images on the other hand can offer more unusual and premium imagery and the option for exclusivity in a territory or over time in addition to sales histories if required. The drawback is not only in potentially higher pricing but also a possibly lengthier and more complicated licensing process.

First and foremost the need is, of course, for the right image(s) and license type may only be a secondary consideration. However there can be times when it is worth searching specifically for a certain license type. Where an image is intended to be used extensively across miltiple media for instance, an RF image may well be much more cost effective, or if an image is to be associated with a premium brand a RM image would probaly be more appropriate.