Licensing images is typically what an illustrator does, a fine artist, like myself, not so much.
There’s no right or wrong here, these are just two very different business models.
An illustrator is hired to execute someone else’s vision of a subject. A fine artist is commissioned to execute their vision.
Fine art is a luxury product. A luxury product is diluted as it becomes more common and less exclusive.
I have chosen not to license my intellectual property for four main reasons.
1. It would interfere with communicating exclusivity, a requirement for a luxury brand
2. I have found it to be too much work to explain licensing to inexperienced licensees
3. It doesn’t pay all that well and I believe in going for the “low hanging fruit”
4. The three times I did license my images, it was an enormous pain in the *#<!
The last licensee, a small winery, helped themselves to my image and illegally applied it to their poorly designed website and sign walk sign. Although these applications were specifically prohibited in the contract.
I sued them twice and I won twice. But this is not the highest or best use of my time and the financial settlement certainly didn’t make up for all the trouble.
If you are thinking of licensing to gain “exposure”, think carefully. Exposure is often over sold to eager artists.
“Exposure” can be translated into the artist giving a lot for a little to nothing in return.
My first of three wine labels sold a lot of wine and it was prominently featured in wine shops on the end caps.
But I did not profit from the winery’s profit.
I realized quickly that if I was going to license my images for wine labels that they should be the labels on my wine, not someone else’s.
My income has come primarily from the sale of my original oil paintings and the Giclée prints that my company manufactures and sells directly.
Licensing can be profitable, but if you are just starting out, tip toe very cautiously into this realm. And make darn sure that it supports your long term strategic objectives.
Did you enjoy this article?
I understand your point, and I could reach the same conclusion as you did, Ann. But, I also know that my images would work well to create products for which I have no skill or interest in the actual production and distribution. I believe that I have a solid brand that, with the right licensing partnership, could be very lucrative. It would have to be on my terms, however. I am not interested in illustrating someone else’s idea. I AM interested in working with someone to develop MY ideas into products.
I am a humble sort, and it really is not in my DNA to appeal solely to the “luxury” market. I like to create, and I want to make a living, but the idea of painting for wealthy patrons alone does not appeal to me. I think licensing may be the way to go to make my art available to the folks whom I would like to have it. I am taking steps to learn about the process, however, and I am tip toe-ing cautiously into this realm.
My pleasure Jean. Thank you for contributing to the conversation.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on licensing artwork. I also have decided against licensing my work for the same reasons as you and I also have decided against doing giclees as well. Many artists work actually lends itself well to licensing with images of well known places, sunsets, sunrises, landscapes, etc. Each of us has to find what works best for us.
My personal experience with collectors of my work has been that they do not want the work that they have purchased also available to others in what I will call a cheaper format. They purchased it for their collection and the exclusivity is part of the overall concept for some of them.