>>3648658Anon what you’re suggesting is bollocks and a good way to fuck up trust with your clients.
Think about it, how is this complicated pricing is gonna work?
Say they don’t want to pay for licensing, what then? Are you gonna return the money they paid you? If not, what did this money get them, just The right to use the photos for 60 days? Did they know that this was what thy were buying from the start, or you’re changing the terms retroactively? Forget goodwill and badmouthing etc., but even legally you have no leg to stand on. “I was gonna do it for free, then they offered me my normal rate which I accepted, but then I told them they can use it only for 60 days and have to pay for more cause I realised they’re gonna be making money and I want in”.
And aside from this situation, licensing just doesn’t work man, especially with private individuals and small businesses.
This kind of clients doesn’t want to bother with licensing, paying every month a bill as infinitum. Licensing works with huge companies and continent providers where both try to mitigate risk by not committing to a sale worth millions, *or* when you have something that they need and can’t be reshot (sports highlights, news, photoreportage or paparazzi shit, etc.).
Also with a licensing agreement you’d have to work for a low fee or for free. Are you willing to take that risk? What if the business goes down? Or later decides to not use your pics? All your work is wasted then.
Lastly, how are you even gonna enforce a licensing agreement? Are you gonna police their website and offices or whatever, for illegal use of your images? Are you gonna keep checking every month? And then what? Are you gonna be paying an attorney $100 for each cease a desist letter you send, to maybe wring our 50 out of that client for licensing for the month?
Charge a livable wage, shoot the photos, keep copyright and let them use them however they want. Is the simplest and safest way.
