Usage in perpetuity is among the most consequential and contested terms in creator marketing contracts. Under a perpetual license, a brand pays a creator once and retains the right to run that content in paid media, across any channel, without a defined end date and without additional compensation. Brands argue the arrangement provides the flexibility needed to redeploy proven assets across campaigns over time. Creator-side negotiators point to content licensed for single campaigns that remained in paid circulation years later, generating commercial value the original creator never participated in.
The topic of creator usage rights was the subject of one of our previous roundtables that identified perpetuity as one of the most frequently mishandled terms in creator deals, alongside whitelisting and AI training clauses.
That conversation established where the friction points lie. This one narrows to a more fundamental question we put to 33 Creator Economy executives, agency leaders, talent managers, and legal professionals: Is perpetuity ever fair?
Usage rights shouldn’t always expire. They should always be priced.
Nobody objects to a brand running a winning asset for three years. We object to them acquiring that right for $100, inside a template nobody read, on a line item nobody scoped. Perpetual usage is the most valuable thing a creator gives up, and it’s usually given away as a rounding error.
Make it available, expensive, and narrow. Perpetual duration is fair to sell. Perpetual scope – every channel, unlimited edits, likeness in new creative, no takedown right – is not. And be honest that you can’t audit your way out. At our scale, nobody catches an unattributed Amazon DSP placement. An unpoliced 30-day window is worth less than a perpetual license priced correctly.
Pricing, as a multiplier on base content fee: 30 days +0.35x. 12 months +1.5x. Perpetual, scoped, +3 to 5x. Whitelisting doubles it. CTV and OTT are a separate line, never “paid usage.” Perpetuity isn’t a bet on the average asset – that dies in 90 days. It’s an option on the winner. Price the tail. Build the ladder so 12 months always looks like the smart buy.
Perpetuity is a bad deal for everyone, including the brand.
Asking for perpetual rights is paying full price for the whole menu, because you haven’t picked a dish. Brands do it because they haven’t decided what the content is for, so they lock in every option at once. But most creator content underperforms, and you can’t know which pieces will perform until you run them.
Usage fees typically add 20% to 50% on top of a creator’s base rate, and perpetual rights can add 50% to 100%. So perpetuity means paying the steepest markup on content that mostly never leaves the folder it was delivered in. That’s not flexibility. That’s a very expensive maybe.
And the pieces that do work? Creators find them still running in ads three years later, uncompensated.
The market is already moving. Many creators now charge 15% to 35% of their base rate per 30 days, and brands are budgeting creator assets as paid media creative, priced on performance and run time.
My rule: license 30 days, organic and paid, on the channels you’ll actually test. The pieces that perform get relicensed on 3 or 6-month terms. The creator earns more on proven content, the brand stops funding a graveyard, and nobody is stuck paying forever on a piece that died in week two.
Perpetual buyouts of creators’ content and NIL rights are risky and generally should be avoided, but they are not inherently unfair. A perpetual grant buried in a $250 agreement with an unrepresented 19-year-old is fundamentally different from a negotiated work-made-for-hire or UGC transaction in which a sophisticated creator and experienced management understand and appropriately price the rights conveyed.
I have represented, as legal counsel, creators seeking release from lifelong advertising agreements signed early in their careers, before they had meaningful bargaining power or understood the potential value of their identities. These agreements can be exceptionally difficult to unwind, even when the economics are profoundly one-sided. That underscores the importance of informed negotiation and proportionate compensation at the outset.
We generally price one year of paid usage at eight to ten times the 30-day rate. True perpetual paid usage may command 10 to 25 times the annual rate, roughly tracking the same valuation methodology as a 30-to-50-year annuity while accounting for the creator’s potential growth.
Perpetual organic usage is different. A brand should generally be permitted to leave an authorized post on its existing feed indefinitely, provided it is not reposted, boosted or converted into paid media.
Perpetuity is fair when it’s priced like perpetuity. It almost never is.
Creators: the usage clause is the deal. Not the fee. Not the deliverables. The term and the scope are where the money actually lives, and it’s the section most creators skim.
Think about what you’re signing. Forever, all channels, one payment. If that ad becomes the brand’s top performer and runs four years across paid social, CTV and retail media, you captured none of it. You sold an option with no expiry for the price of one post.
Default to a window. 30 to 180 days, then renew. If it works, they’ll pay again, and that’s a good problem for everyone.
Pricing, roughly how I do it: usage is a multiplier on the content fee. 30 days organic plus paid, 1.5x. One year all digital, 2.5 to 3x. Perpetual, all channels, 5x floor. I’d rather sell three one-year renewals than one perpetual grant. Whitelisting is its own line. AI training gets carved out unless there’s a real number attached.
And the test that settles most negotiations: if a brand won’t pay for perpetuity, they don’t need it. They just want it free.
Perpetuity is a sale, not a long license. The brand is buying every campaign it hasn’t thought of yet, on channels that don’t exist, for products it hasn’t launched. That’s a real asset, yet it gets bought at a flat fee because nobody bothers to size it.
On pricing, here’s roughly where I land. Take the 30-day rate as your base. A year runs 3-5x that, since you’re covering a full campaign cycle plus the renewals the brand would otherwise have to come back and negotiate. Perpetual should be 8-12x the 30-day, and it goes up with where the creator’s headed. Somebody growing 40% a year is handing over something that’s worth more every month the brand keeps running it. Static price, appreciating asset.
Term limits with renewal options are cleaner for everybody. Brand pays for what it uses. Creator gets repriced as the audience compounds.
Simple answer, no. Usage in perpetuity treats a creator’s likeness like a stock photo: pay once, use forever. But brands don’t do this with celebrities or spokespeople, because they understand image value shifts. A creator’s reach, relevance, and purchase influence change over time, and pricing should track that. Locking in a single fee ignores growth, and worse, puts the creator at risk when a brand’s reputation shifts: your face is still running in an ad you no longer control or endorse.
I would never license in perpetuity. We price in windows: a 30-day license runs $750-$5,000, based on engagement, demand, and usage scope. A 1-year license is roughly 3-4x the 30-day rate, not 12x, since paid media typically front-loads spend in the first few months. Perpetual, when a brand insists, isn’t really a license, it’s a buyout, priced at 8-10x the 1-year rate plus an exclusivity clause, because the creator is permanently forfeiting future negotiating leverage. Usage rights should expire. Renewals keep the relationship and the pricing honest.
I don’t think usage in perpetuity is inherently unfair. I think poorly defined usage in perpetuity is. I would encourage folks to think less about dollars and more about parameters. Too often, brands ask for perpetual rights because they don’t actually understand what rights they need or might need in the future. Our industry needs to better educate marketers on this. The lack of education results in negotiating for things the brand likely doesn’t need/require but the creator (or their rep) will fight viciously over. This complexity arises from that lack of education. And it gets complicated quickly. At the same time, let’s discuss the differences for a minute. A brand wanting to keep a creator’s video on a product page or archive indefinitely is very different from wanting unrestricted rights to turn that creator’s name, image and likeness into advertising across any medium forever. Creators should price longer usage accordingly, but I’d argue scope matters just as much as duration. Where can it run? Is it paid or organic? Can it be modified? Can it move to another medium? A perpetual license restricted to a specific use or platform can sometimes be perfectly reasonable. If a brand wants to leave the same video on its website for three years, creators should be reasonable partners. If that brand suddenly wants to put your face on a billboard in West Hollywood, that’s a new conversation. Don’t just negotiate the expiration date. Negotiate the boundaries. Give brands the flexibility they actually need, price accordingly, and require materially different uses to come back through you for written approval.
The problem is how perpetuity deals are structured, not perpetuity itself. The gaping hole is the asymmetry of paying once for assets generating compounding returns indefinitely. In fair deals, the scope must be congruent: creators also getting paid indefinitely, whatever the underlying terms. It’s not rocket science.
Brands arguing they “paid for the asset and need flexibility” is borderline offensive, as if the asset wasn’t creators’ name, image, likeness, and audience trust, but rather the production itself. Otherwise, brands would just keep producing studio ads with fancy sets, cast, and crew, instead of pivoting to creator content. Logos can be redesigned and products rebuilt, but a person’s own identity can’t.
Imagine offering Inde Navarrette, the Obsession movie’s star, a perpetuity deal for a flat fee only two weeks after the film’s debut, before her superstardom. Her reps would still laugh you out of the room.
For whitelisting specifically, considering 30 days as the standard period: the more periods each deal includes, the cheaper each one gets, with the monthly ad spend percentage rate dropping when monthly spend thresholds are crossed. Perpetuity deals should mix this model with royalties or revenue sharing to offset upfront spending risks and share the upside.
I don’t think “forever” is the problem. The problem is “forever for the price of a campaign.” A one-time fee for perpetual rights is basically asking the creator to hand over an asset without knowing what it’s worth yet. Brands wouldn’t sign that deal on their own side, so it’s a little rich to ask creators to.
That said, I get why brands want it. Nobody wants to re-paper every asset every 90 days, and a lot of that content dies in a month anyway.
So my answer is: rights should have a clock by default, but the clock should be priced like a real option. Ninety days or six months for the base fee, and if the brand wants to keep it running, they pay a renewal, or they buy out perpetuity up front at a number that actually reflects it. The stuff that keeps running years later is, by definition, the content that worked. That’s exactly when the creator should get paid again, not the moment they get forgotten.
And practically, the “still running years later, uncompensated” stories usually aren’t malice. They’re nobody tracking expiry dates. So whatever we agree on tonight, it only works if someone’s actually monitoring it.
If a creator is treating content creation as a side hustle and isn’t concerned about the commercial value of their image or likeness growing over time, granting broader usage rights can be fine. This makes them easier for brands to work with. That said, if usage rights are granted at all, there should always be an additional fee attached.
On the other end of the spectrum, if a creator is building their own personal brand, essentially making themselves the business, the paid usage period should always have a cutoff. You can always offer options to extend usage for additional fees.
The contract language itself also deserves very careful scrutiny. Any grant of rights to someone’s likeness should be narrowly tailored to the specific content developed, never a broad, general grant. This matters even more in the age of AI. You never want to grant your likeness for any purpose, in perpetuity, to a brand because that could allow them to use it for AI agents or virtually anything else down the line.
Paid media usage rights should expire in almost every case. For me, perpetual usage is rarely fair because the brand is not just buying a video – it is licensing the creator’s image, credibility, and endorsement forever.
A creator may complete a one-time campaign and still appear in active ads years later, affecting future opportunities with competing brands. Unlike an actor appearing in a film, an ad continues to communicate an active endorsement every time it runs.
From an agency perspective, 30 days, one year, and perpetuity are completely different products and should be priced that way. Short-term usage should carry an additional fee based on the campaign scope, while a one-year license should cost more because of the longer exposure and potential category conflicts.
Could perpetuity ever be fair? In very specific cases, yes – but only if it is treated as a real buyout and the creator is properly compensated. The contract should clearly define the content, channels, territory, editing rights, sublicensing, and any use of the creator’s name, image, voice, or AI likeness.
Historical or non-promotional organic use is different. But paid media should never mean unlimited control over someone’s likeness for a standard one-time fee.
Usage rights is one of the most overlooked areas in creator partnerships. Creators are built on their content. When a brand partners with them, they’re licensing a skill, an art form, and an audience relationship. That has to be compensated, not just on deliverables, but on how long and where that content lives. Perpetual rights for a one-time fee doesn’t work. Not because it’s unfair to creators, though it is, but because it’s actually bad for brands too. A brand paying upfront for content in perpetuity is betting on something before they know if it “works” for them. What makes more sense is structured usage with renewal options. Initial usage is agreed as part of the deal. Both parties then review performance (acquisition, awareness, conversion, etc.) and decide together whether renewal makes sense. If the content is working, the brand extends. If it isn’t, they move on. This protects the brand’s commercial interests. It protects the creator’s work. And it opens the door to ongoing commercial relationships built on proof, not assumption.
The best creator deals aren’t one-and-done transactions. They’re partnerships with room to grow from all angles.
The real answer is “sometimes” or “it depends.” There are deals where a brand needs an asset indefinitely and a creator would gladly sell that right at the right price. The problem is that the market can only resolve to one default. Perpetuity gets applied where it doesn’t fit, or banned where it would have worked, because nobody can price the difference deal by deal.
This is the same wall the advertising industry is up against with contextual standards. A buyer says what it wants, a seller says what it has, and matching those precisely is too expensive, so both sides fall back on categories and round numbers. Nobody chose 90-day windows because value decays at 90 days. A creator’s only two products end up being one campaign or forever.
What’s changing is that usage can be described and measured precisely enough to price it. That makes terms flexible instead of fixed, and puts more options on the shelf for both sides.
I’m generally against perpetual usage unless the creator is being paid a very significant premium for it.
The biggest issue is that nobody knows what the content will be worth 2 or 3 years from now. A brand could pay for one campaign today, the ad performs incredibly well, and they’re still spending millions behind that creator’s face years later while the creator gets nothing additional. I don’t think that’s fair.
Our preference is almost always a defined usage period with the ability to renew. It keeps things clean for both sides and lets the brand continue using the asset if it is actually performing.
Pricing depends heavily on the creator and how the content is being used, but as a rough framework:
30 days: around 20–30% of the creation fee
1 year: around 75–150% of the creation fee
Perpetuity: minimum 2–3x the creation fee, and in many cases I would simply say no
Perpetuity should not be treated as a small contract add-on. The brand is effectively buying out the future value of that asset, and it should be priced accordingly.
We believe usage rights should expire. And honestly, that’s good for brands, too. Creative has a shelf life: assets tend to peak in performance within weeks or months, so defined usage windows encourage brands to refresh their creative before it starts feeling like yesterday’s news.
Time-limited usage also builds trust with creators. Respecting those boundaries shows talent that a brand sees them as a long-term partner, not an asset it owns forever.
For creators, the stakes can be even higher. A creator featured prominently in an ad can quickly become synonymous with a brand, potentially limiting future opportunities with competitors. That’s especially significant for niche creators. For example, automotive reviewers, where a long-term or perpetual license could close the door on a meaningful portion of their future income.
Our standard campaigns typically include three months of usage, with usage generally representing at least 25% of the creator’s total fee. A one-month license is often built into a creator’s base rate. A one-year license or perpetuity can command 2x or more of a creator’s typical rate, and sometimes, no price is high enough if the opportunity cost means walking away from future partnerships.
Perpetual usage rights shouldn’t exist, even when creators offer them. We tell our brand partners to set an expiration date.
Here’s why: creators’ likenesses have ongoing value. If a brand wants to keep running content after the initial licensing period, they should pay for that privilege, and creators should retain the right to end usage or renegotiate.
Our model: a 30-day license typically starts at 25% of the content cost per month, with declining rates for longer commitments. Paid promotion has a hard cutoff and organic usage should be able to be revoked when requested by the creator after their initial partnership window.
This isn’t creator-advocacy theater. We represent brands. But fair contracts protect both sides. A brand that respects creator rights builds better long-term partnerships than one that tries to squeeze perpetual value from a one-time fee. The creators producing your best content won’t work with you twice if you’re running their face in ads two years later without additional compensation.
As a rule, I advise creators to steer clear of usage in perpetuity unless they’re fully confident it won’t create problems down the line. The core issue is uncertainty: you don’t know how much your audience or brand opportunities will grow. Lock in perpetual rights for a flat fee today, and in two years you may find you gave away far more value than you were paid for with zero leverage to renegotiate.
Usage in perpetuity also creates exclusivity headaches for creators. If that brand sits in a category you’d want to work in again, having their ad running indefinitely can block or complicate new partnerships in the same space.
On pricing, we typically build in the first 30 days of usage at little to no additional cost, since that’s standard campaign flighting. Beyond that, each additional month is priced at 5-10% of the total content fee. We try to cap initial usage terms at 6 months, with the option to revisit and negotiate an extension if the brand wants to keep running the content longer. This structure protects the creator’s future earning potential while still giving brands flexibility.
Courtney Canfield, Influencer Marketing Consultant & Content Creator
Brands that require creators to hand over usage rights in perpetuity are … lazy. There, I said it.
As someone who’s worked in Influencer Marketing for 14 years, I can tell you creators who understand the value of “forever” will charge quadruple their base rate for perpetuity, if they’ll sell it to you at all. And let’s be honest: there’s no reason a brand should be buying “forever usage.” You won’t be running a video shot on someone’s iPhone 14 in five years, after the styling’s dated, the slang’s dead, and partnering with that creator isn’t cool anymore.
From a creator perspective, perpetual usage means a brand could keep running my content even after I’m dead, after I (somehow) become president, marry into royalty, win a billion dollars and give it all to tax-the-rich political campaigns, or become the first influencer in space. Content shouldn’t outlive the person who made it or the moment it was made in. Brands don’t get to keep profiting off my likeness forever just because they signed me before I got big.
Usage should have an expiration date. Thirty to 180 days with paid renewals protects the brand’s budget “and” the creator’s ownership of their own image.
Perpetuity isn’t inherently fair or unfair. Fairness isn’t determined by whether usage rights expire. It’s determined by whether the value exchanged fairly reflects what both sides are receiving, giving up and risking.
A creator should have the right to negotiate a perpetual buyout or expiring usage with paid renewals. But perpetuity isn’t simply a longer usage window. It transfers future risk and reward. The brand assumes the risk that the content may lose value, while the creator gives up future renewal revenue and the ability to participate in potential appreciation.
There’s also opportunity cost. If Brand A buys perpetual rights and five years later is still running the creator’s ad, Brand B, a competitor, may hesitate to hire that creator for a major campaign.
That’s where Brand & Creator Stewardship matters. Fairness has to be established at the time of negotiation, based on the current value each side brings, the scope of the rights being purchased, and the reasonable potential for that value to scale.
Usage shouldn’t be priced by duration alone. Creator value, brand scale, media spend, likeness, exclusivity and commercial potential all matter. Perpetuity should be valued as a true buyout.
There’s a convenience to perpetual usage on the brand side, but there is typically more nuance to when and why a brand may need this. While perpetual usage is something I think should be “on the table” for a brand, perpetual usage doesn’t always benefit the brand. It can be valuable in certain scenarios and some industries more than others. However, if a brand is working with a creator for lifestyle content, especially when featuring the creator in the content, limited usage can protect both the brand and creator in many instances. Should the brand need to part ways with the creator, the perpetual usage fee is not wasted. It also protects from future conflicts should the creator become more involved with a competitor. Ultimately, I think brands should have the option for perpetual usage at the right price point for the right asset – but it’s often not necessary.
I don’t think usage in perpetuity should be the default. Creator content has ongoing value, and if a brand continues to benefit from that content months or years after the original campaign, the creator should share in that value.
That doesn’t mean perpetual rights should never be an option. If both sides understand what’s being licensed and the creator is appropriately compensated for giving up future usage rights, it can make sense. But it should be a deliberate business decision, not boilerplate buried in a contract.
I prefer defined usage windows with renewal options because they give brands flexibility while recognizing that the value of a creator, their audience and their content can change significantly over time.
On pricing, I wouldn’t apply a universal multiplier because the value depends on the creator, content, channels, paid media spend and expected reach. But directionally, I’d treat 30 days as the base license, one year as a meaningful premium and perpetual rights as a substantial buyout. If a brand wants unlimited value indefinitely, the creator should be compensated accordingly.
We don’t believe usage in perpetuity should be the default. Creator content is not just a production asset; it carries the creator’s image, credibility and cultural relevance, and that value can change significantly over time.
For most campaigns, usage rights should have a clear expiration date and the brand should have the option to renew if the content continues to perform. That creates a much fairer relationship: if an ad is still generating value for a brand one or two years later, the creator should participate in that extended value.
That said, perpetuity can be fair when everyone understands exactly what is being licensed and the compensation reflects it. The problem is when perpetual rights are buried in a standard agreement and priced almost the same as a short-term campaign.
At BrandMe, I would think about pricing usage as a multiplier on top of the creator’s base content fee. A 30-day paid media license might add roughly 20-30%, while a one-year license could add 75-150% depending on the creator, territories, platforms and media spend. True perpetuity should command a very significant premium – potentially 2x to 4x or more of the original content fee – because the creator is effectively giving up control of that asset forever.
My rule is simple: the longer the brand wants to capture the value of creator content, the more of that value should be shared with the creator.
Usage rights should, by default, expire. Perpetuity may be appropriate in some cases, but it should never be buried in a standard creator agreement or priced like a single campaign deliverable.
Since many years ago, I have always championed separating the cost of creating content from the value of using it in paid media. A creator’s face, voice, and credibility can continue generating value for a brand long after the original post, and association to a brand through usage of content may limit future partnerships. Fair compensation should reflect such opportunity costs.
As a practical starting point, I would recommend including (and waiving) a 30-day usage as part of creator fees, then an additional 25-30% for every month of usage thereafter. A one-year license may reasonably command an additional 100-200% depending on channels, territories, and exclusivity, among many other factors. A true perpetual buyout should cost at least three to five times the creation fee, and some creators should decline it entirely for strategic reasons.
As a general rule though, if content keeps working and deriving value, the creator should continue participating in that value.
Perpetuity’s only fair if the price matches it, and most contracts don’t come close. I’ve seen it happen too many times: a brand licenses one post for one campaign, then it’s still running as a paid ad two years later with no extra payment. That’s not a deal, that’s the creator funding the brand’s ad spend for free. Usage windows should be the norm. 30 to 180 days covers a real campaign, and renewals keep both sides fair: brands pay for continued use, creators get paid for it.
On pricing, 30 days sits close to the original fee. A year runs 2-3x that, since you’re covering more than one flight. Perpetual should be priced like a buyout, 5x or more, paid upfront because you’re paying to never ask again. If a brand won’t pay buyout money for buyout rights, that says enough about whether perpetuity was ever fair.
I don’t think brands should have the right to use creator content forever for a one-time fee. A creator’s content is an asset, and if a brand is continuing to use that asset to drive awareness, sales or paid media years later, the creator should continue to be compensated for it.
I’m a big believer in putting clear expiration dates around usage rights. Typically, we’ll negotiate usage in 30, 60, 90 or 180-day windows and then give the brand the option to renew. That gives the brand flexibility while also protecting the creator from having their face, likeness and content tied to a campaign indefinitely without any additional compensation.
When it comes to pricing, the longer the usage term, the higher the fee. A 30-day license may come with a smaller set fee, while a one-year license should be significantly more because the brand is receiving substantially more value. Most agents price usage as a percentage of the creator’s base rate, but I do things a little differently and use set fees based on the usage term. Perpetual usage, if a creator agrees to it at all, should come at a major premium because they are essentially giving up future earning potential on that asset forever.
For me, the biggest thing is making sure creators understand that usage rights have real value. The mistake is treating usage as a small contract add-on when, in reality, it can sometimes be worth as much as – or more than – the content creation itself.
Perpetual usage is a no-go, full stop. You never know if a creator’s priorities are going to change (they could go from being vegan then full carnivore diet five years later) or if a brand’s priorities change (they get bought out and the once great ingredients get swapped out for cheaper alternatives).
Brands aren’t paying for the asset, they are paying for access to a hyper-engaged audience and the trust the creator has built with their community. If they’re just looking for an asset, they should do a commercial shoot.
I’ve had great success working out pre-negotiated usage rates with brands, so they know upfront how much it would cost to renew usage past the initial window we agree upon.
At the end of the day, it typically doesn’t make sense to use the content past a certain timeframe anyways. So many briefs are tied to a specific sale, holiday, or tentpole moment. Even if the content is more evergreen, fresh creative almost always makes sense to keep up with the ever-changing social landscape.
It depends on the creator’s goals, but I would almost never give away usage in perpetuity.
A brand isn’t simply buying an asset. It’s renting the trust and connection you’ve built with your audience. The question is: are you comfortable letting that brand reuse your face, voice and credibility across paid media for years, while you receive nothing further?
For smaller creators, flexibility makes sense. Maybe you accept 12 months instead of 90 days to close an important first partnership. You could even negotiate a longer window for the right price. But there should still be an expiration date.
Because your value changes. A creator with 10,000 followers today may have 1 million five years from now. Your positioning, audience and even your relationship with that brand or industry may change completely.
So don’t optimize one contract purely for today’s cash. Define a usage window, price it accordingly, and charge for renewals.
You can sell your content. You can license your credibility. But I wouldn’t sell permanent access to your future self for a one-time fee.
Yes. Asking and paying a creator for rights in perpetuity is absolutely on the table. Whether it is fair – or not – is based on the specifics of the deal. If we rewind the clock, we used to pay creative agencies to make images and videos about products and we paid once and used it indefinitely. The same can apply to creators. They are hired resources to make content that the brand wants to use over time without ongoing payments. This works for everyday creators like the nano and micro influencers sourced on partnrUP.ai because it is understood that the brand is not engaging with them for their likeness or status. So what about the top tier? When working with larger influencers, I would guide my team to skip offer [sic] an influencer who is charging above 30% premium for 12-month usage rights.
Licensing rules shouldn’t change just because we’ve shifted from traditional media to the Creator Economy.
Historically, brands paid production crews a one-time fee, but paid models for usage rights, licensing their face, image, and personal brand across specific platforms and regions. Brands have negotiated these terms for decades. Why treat creators any differently?
When you work with a creator, you aren’t just paying for content production. You are paying for the value of the person in that content, their reach, their credibility, and their direct connection to a target audience.
Content creation and media licensing are two distinct assets. The contract should reflect both.
A friend of mine from childhood was in the 80s classic movie “Poltergeist.” He still gets a residual check today; it’s a great model for Hollywood, but not for marketing. Most products change or get discontinued within a few years, so why would a brand need to use a creator’s content in perpetuity? It doesn’t make sense.
A 30 to 180-day license is standard, and it works because it’s calculated as a percentage of the campaign rate. For products that actually last, like a movie, there are formulas for long-term usage; for most campaigns, however, perpetuity is overkill. I often see brands demand these rights and then not even use them. That’s budget that could have been used to drive more audience during the primary campaign window.
I’m usually arguing for shorter usage rights, or removing them entirely, rather than debating the cost of perpetuity. Let’s focus on the primary campaign window; it’s more effective. Shorter agreements keep things flexible, they keep the brand relevant, and they respect the creator’s work without overcomplicating the licensing process. Let’s stick to what actually delivers results.
This is contrarian, but I don’t think usage windows ever make sense. The creator took the time to make the content; why should we limit the value that it creates? Both the brand “and” the creator would probably prefer a performance model where the content could keep generating value over time. It would save a lot of effort from both sides. Termination dates never make sense.
Perpetuity is truly never a good idea. No one can predict the future and it’s more likely than not that a brand securing perpetual usage rights to creator content will carry immeasurable opportunity cost for the creator, if not worse. If you’re a print model being paid for stock photography … “maybe,” but I’ve personally even seen that take a turn for the worse and had to help a client legally maneuver circumstances along those lines once the client later became famous. Though for a creator, who more likely than not is already building a meaningful business around their own name, image, likeness and/or content, selling perpetual usage rights to a 3rd-party will almost never work out well in the long run.
We believe every creator has the right to make the deal that works best for them. Brands should be able to negotiate perpetuity usage when it works for both the brand and creator. Perpetuity usage is common for talent earlier in their careers and, if a creator doesn’t have concerns about long-term use, can be a lucrative opportunity. It also simplifies tracking and paperwork for both sides.
The biggest consideration is what the creator may be giving up in the future. If that content continues running for years, it could limit the creator’s ability to work with competitors or create conflicts with future partnerships. Creators should understand those implications upfront before agreeing to perpetual usage.
Dragomir is a Serbian freelance blog writer and translator. He is passionate about covering insightful stories and exploring topics such as influencer marketing, the creator economy, technology, business, and cyber fraud.
Usage in perpetuity is among the most consequential and contested terms in creator marketing contracts. Under a perpetual license, a brand pays a creator once and retains the right to run that content in paid media, across any channel, without a defined end date and without additional compensation. Brands argue the arrangement provides the flexibility needed to redeploy proven assets across campaigns over time. Creator-side negotiators point to content licensed for single campaigns that remained in paid circulation years later, generating commercial value the original creator never participated in.
The topic of creator usage rights was the subject of one of our previous roundtables that identified perpetuity as one of the most frequently mishandled terms in creator deals, alongside whitelisting and AI training clauses.
That conversation established where the friction points lie. This one narrows to a more fundamental question we put to 33 Creator Economy executives, agency leaders, talent managers, and legal professionals: Is perpetuity ever fair?
Dan Albert, CEO, 456 Growth
Perpetuity isn’t the problem. Free perpetuity is.
Usage rights shouldn’t always expire. They should always be priced.
Nobody objects to a brand running a winning asset for three years. We object to them acquiring that right for $100, inside a template nobody read, on a line item nobody scoped. Perpetual usage is the most valuable thing a creator gives up, and it’s usually given away as a rounding error.
Make it available, expensive, and narrow. Perpetual duration is fair to sell. Perpetual scope – every channel, unlimited edits, likeness in new creative, no takedown right – is not. And be honest that you can’t audit your way out. At our scale, nobody catches an unattributed Amazon DSP placement. An unpoliced 30-day window is worth less than a perpetual license priced correctly.
Pricing, as a multiplier on base content fee: 30 days +0.35x. 12 months +1.5x. Perpetual, scoped, +3 to 5x. Whitelisting doubles it. CTV and OTT are a separate line, never “paid usage.” Perpetuity isn’t a bet on the average asset – that dies in 90 days. It’s an option on the winner. Price the tail. Build the ladder so 12 months always looks like the smart buy.
Kate Fleming, Director of Influencer Strategy, PartnerCentric
Perpetuity is a bad deal for everyone, including the brand.
Asking for perpetual rights is paying full price for the whole menu, because you haven’t picked a dish. Brands do it because they haven’t decided what the content is for, so they lock in every option at once. But most creator content underperforms, and you can’t know which pieces will perform until you run them.
Usage fees typically add 20% to 50% on top of a creator’s base rate, and perpetual rights can add 50% to 100%. So perpetuity means paying the steepest markup on content that mostly never leaves the folder it was delivered in. That’s not flexibility. That’s a very expensive maybe.
And the pieces that do work? Creators find them still running in ads three years later, uncompensated.
The market is already moving. Many creators now charge 15% to 35% of their base rate per 30 days, and brands are budgeting creator assets as paid media creative, priced on performance and run time.
My rule: license 30 days, organic and paid, on the channels you’ll actually test. The pieces that perform get relicensed on 3 or 6-month terms. The creator earns more on proven content, the brand stops funding a graveyard, and nobody is stuck paying forever on a piece that died in week two.
Joey Roesler, CEO, CMG Talent
Perpetual buyouts of creators’ content and NIL rights are risky and generally should be avoided, but they are not inherently unfair. A perpetual grant buried in a $250 agreement with an unrepresented 19-year-old is fundamentally different from a negotiated work-made-for-hire or UGC transaction in which a sophisticated creator and experienced management understand and appropriately price the rights conveyed.
I have represented, as legal counsel, creators seeking release from lifelong advertising agreements signed early in their careers, before they had meaningful bargaining power or understood the potential value of their identities. These agreements can be exceptionally difficult to unwind, even when the economics are profoundly one-sided. That underscores the importance of informed negotiation and proportionate compensation at the outset.
We generally price one year of paid usage at eight to ten times the 30-day rate. True perpetual paid usage may command 10 to 25 times the annual rate, roughly tracking the same valuation methodology as a 30-to-50-year annuity while accounting for the creator’s potential growth.
Perpetual organic usage is different. A brand should generally be permitted to leave an authorized post on its existing feed indefinitely, provided it is not reposted, boosted or converted into paid media.
Tobias Hoss, Co-Founder, Senior Advisor, 30 Dishes
Perpetuity is fair when it’s priced like perpetuity. It almost never is.
Creators: the usage clause is the deal. Not the fee. Not the deliverables. The term and the scope are where the money actually lives, and it’s the section most creators skim.
Think about what you’re signing. Forever, all channels, one payment. If that ad becomes the brand’s top performer and runs four years across paid social, CTV and retail media, you captured none of it. You sold an option with no expiry for the price of one post.
Default to a window. 30 to 180 days, then renew. If it works, they’ll pay again, and that’s a good problem for everyone.
Pricing, roughly how I do it: usage is a multiplier on the content fee. 30 days organic plus paid, 1.5x. One year all digital, 2.5 to 3x. Perpetual, all channels, 5x floor. I’d rather sell three one-year renewals than one perpetual grant. Whitelisting is its own line. AI training gets carved out unless there’s a real number attached.
And the test that settles most negotiations: if a brand won’t pay for perpetuity, they don’t need it. They just want it free.
Josh Stein, CEO, Attention Capital
Usage should expire.
Perpetuity is a sale, not a long license. The brand is buying every campaign it hasn’t thought of yet, on channels that don’t exist, for products it hasn’t launched. That’s a real asset, yet it gets bought at a flat fee because nobody bothers to size it.
On pricing, here’s roughly where I land. Take the 30-day rate as your base. A year runs 3-5x that, since you’re covering a full campaign cycle plus the renewals the brand would otherwise have to come back and negotiate. Perpetual should be 8-12x the 30-day, and it goes up with where the creator’s headed. Somebody growing 40% a year is handing over something that’s worth more every month the brand keeps running it. Static price, appreciating asset.
Term limits with renewal options are cleaner for everybody. Brand pays for what it uses. Creator gets repriced as the audience compounds.
Becca Bahrke, CEO, Illuminate Social
Simple answer, no. Usage in perpetuity treats a creator’s likeness like a stock photo: pay once, use forever. But brands don’t do this with celebrities or spokespeople, because they understand image value shifts. A creator’s reach, relevance, and purchase influence change over time, and pricing should track that. Locking in a single fee ignores growth, and worse, puts the creator at risk when a brand’s reputation shifts: your face is still running in an ad you no longer control or endorse.
I would never license in perpetuity. We price in windows: a 30-day license runs $750-$5,000, based on engagement, demand, and usage scope. A 1-year license is roughly 3-4x the 30-day rate, not 12x, since paid media typically front-loads spend in the first few months. Perpetual, when a brand insists, isn’t really a license, it’s a buyout, priced at 8-10x the 1-year rate plus an exclusivity clause, because the creator is permanently forfeiting future negotiating leverage. Usage rights should expire. Renewals keep the relationship and the pricing honest.
Johnny Cloherty, Co-Founder & CEO, Genni
I don’t think usage in perpetuity is inherently unfair. I think poorly defined usage in perpetuity is. I would encourage folks to think less about dollars and more about parameters. Too often, brands ask for perpetual rights because they don’t actually understand what rights they need or might need in the future. Our industry needs to better educate marketers on this. The lack of education results in negotiating for things the brand likely doesn’t need/require but the creator (or their rep) will fight viciously over. This complexity arises from that lack of education. And it gets complicated quickly. At the same time, let’s discuss the differences for a minute. A brand wanting to keep a creator’s video on a product page or archive indefinitely is very different from wanting unrestricted rights to turn that creator’s name, image and likeness into advertising across any medium forever. Creators should price longer usage accordingly, but I’d argue scope matters just as much as duration. Where can it run? Is it paid or organic? Can it be modified? Can it move to another medium? A perpetual license restricted to a specific use or platform can sometimes be perfectly reasonable. If a brand wants to leave the same video on its website for three years, creators should be reasonable partners. If that brand suddenly wants to put your face on a billboard in West Hollywood, that’s a new conversation. Don’t just negotiate the expiration date. Negotiate the boundaries. Give brands the flexibility they actually need, price accordingly, and require materially different uses to come back through you for written approval.
Daniel Caldas, Founder, Caldas Ecom
The problem is how perpetuity deals are structured, not perpetuity itself. The gaping hole is the asymmetry of paying once for assets generating compounding returns indefinitely. In fair deals, the scope must be congruent: creators also getting paid indefinitely, whatever the underlying terms. It’s not rocket science.
Brands arguing they “paid for the asset and need flexibility” is borderline offensive, as if the asset wasn’t creators’ name, image, likeness, and audience trust, but rather the production itself. Otherwise, brands would just keep producing studio ads with fancy sets, cast, and crew, instead of pivoting to creator content. Logos can be redesigned and products rebuilt, but a person’s own identity can’t.
Imagine offering Inde Navarrette, the Obsession movie’s star, a perpetuity deal for a flat fee only two weeks after the film’s debut, before her superstardom. Her reps would still laugh you out of the room.
For whitelisting specifically, considering 30 days as the standard period: the more periods each deal includes, the cheaper each one gets, with the monthly ad spend percentage rate dropping when monthly spend thresholds are crossed. Perpetuity deals should mix this model with royalties or revenue sharing to offset upfront spending risks and share the upside.
Theo Ruzhynsky, Co-Founder, VwD
I don’t think “forever” is the problem. The problem is “forever for the price of a campaign.” A one-time fee for perpetual rights is basically asking the creator to hand over an asset without knowing what it’s worth yet. Brands wouldn’t sign that deal on their own side, so it’s a little rich to ask creators to.
That said, I get why brands want it. Nobody wants to re-paper every asset every 90 days, and a lot of that content dies in a month anyway.
So my answer is: rights should have a clock by default, but the clock should be priced like a real option. Ninety days or six months for the base fee, and if the brand wants to keep it running, they pay a renewal, or they buy out perpetuity up front at a number that actually reflects it. The stuff that keeps running years later is, by definition, the content that worked. That’s exactly when the creator should get paid again, not the moment they get forgotten.
And practically, the “still running years later, uncompensated” stories usually aren’t malice. They’re nobody tracking expiry dates. So whatever we agree on tonight, it only works if someone’s actually monitoring it.
Delara Alviri, Director, Business and Legal Affairs, Palette Media, Inc.
As any good lawyer will tell you: it depends.
If a creator is treating content creation as a side hustle and isn’t concerned about the commercial value of their image or likeness growing over time, granting broader usage rights can be fine. This makes them easier for brands to work with. That said, if usage rights are granted at all, there should always be an additional fee attached.
On the other end of the spectrum, if a creator is building their own personal brand, essentially making themselves the business, the paid usage period should always have a cutoff. You can always offer options to extend usage for additional fees.
The contract language itself also deserves very careful scrutiny. Any grant of rights to someone’s likeness should be narrowly tailored to the specific content developed, never a broad, general grant. This matters even more in the age of AI. You never want to grant your likeness for any purpose, in perpetuity, to a brand because that could allow them to use it for AI agents or virtually anything else down the line.
Fabio Gonçalves, Director of Talent, Viral Nation
Paid media usage rights should expire in almost every case. For me, perpetual usage is rarely fair because the brand is not just buying a video – it is licensing the creator’s image, credibility, and endorsement forever.
A creator may complete a one-time campaign and still appear in active ads years later, affecting future opportunities with competing brands. Unlike an actor appearing in a film, an ad continues to communicate an active endorsement every time it runs.
From an agency perspective, 30 days, one year, and perpetuity are completely different products and should be priced that way. Short-term usage should carry an additional fee based on the campaign scope, while a one-year license should cost more because of the longer exposure and potential category conflicts.
Could perpetuity ever be fair? In very specific cases, yes – but only if it is treated as a real buyout and the creator is properly compensated. The contract should clearly define the content, channels, territory, editing rights, sublicensing, and any use of the creator’s name, image, voice, or AI likeness.
Historical or non-promotional organic use is different. But paid media should never mean unlimited control over someone’s likeness for a standard one-time fee.
Chris J Smith, Head of Agency, The Gold Studios Group
Usage rights is one of the most overlooked areas in creator partnerships. Creators are built on their content. When a brand partners with them, they’re licensing a skill, an art form, and an audience relationship. That has to be compensated, not just on deliverables, but on how long and where that content lives. Perpetual rights for a one-time fee doesn’t work. Not because it’s unfair to creators, though it is, but because it’s actually bad for brands too. A brand paying upfront for content in perpetuity is betting on something before they know if it “works” for them. What makes more sense is structured usage with renewal options. Initial usage is agreed as part of the deal. Both parties then review performance (acquisition, awareness, conversion, etc.) and decide together whether renewal makes sense. If the content is working, the brand extends. If it isn’t, they move on. This protects the brand’s commercial interests. It protects the creator’s work. And it opens the door to ongoing commercial relationships built on proof, not assumption.
The best creator deals aren’t one-and-done transactions. They’re partnerships with room to grow from all angles.
Josh Heller, Chief Revenue Officer, Coactive
The real answer is “sometimes” or “it depends.” There are deals where a brand needs an asset indefinitely and a creator would gladly sell that right at the right price. The problem is that the market can only resolve to one default. Perpetuity gets applied where it doesn’t fit, or banned where it would have worked, because nobody can price the difference deal by deal.
This is the same wall the advertising industry is up against with contextual standards. A buyer says what it wants, a seller says what it has, and matching those precisely is too expensive, so both sides fall back on categories and round numbers. Nobody chose 90-day windows because value decays at 90 days. A creator’s only two products end up being one campaign or forever.
What’s changing is that usage can be described and measured precisely enough to price it. That makes terms flexible instead of fixed, and puts more options on the shelf for both sides.
AB Lieberman, Founder, Clicks Talent
I’m generally against perpetual usage unless the creator is being paid a very significant premium for it.
The biggest issue is that nobody knows what the content will be worth 2 or 3 years from now. A brand could pay for one campaign today, the ad performs incredibly well, and they’re still spending millions behind that creator’s face years later while the creator gets nothing additional. I don’t think that’s fair.
Our preference is almost always a defined usage period with the ability to renew. It keeps things clean for both sides and lets the brand continue using the asset if it is actually performing.
Pricing depends heavily on the creator and how the content is being used, but as a rough framework:
30 days: around 20–30% of the creation fee
1 year: around 75–150% of the creation fee
Perpetuity: minimum 2–3x the creation fee, and in many cases I would simply say no
Perpetuity should not be treated as a small contract add-on. The brand is effectively buying out the future value of that asset, and it should be priced accordingly.
Makenna Peach, Associate Director, Talent Relations, Open Influence
We believe usage rights should expire. And honestly, that’s good for brands, too. Creative has a shelf life: assets tend to peak in performance within weeks or months, so defined usage windows encourage brands to refresh their creative before it starts feeling like yesterday’s news.
Time-limited usage also builds trust with creators. Respecting those boundaries shows talent that a brand sees them as a long-term partner, not an asset it owns forever.
For creators, the stakes can be even higher. A creator featured prominently in an ad can quickly become synonymous with a brand, potentially limiting future opportunities with competitors. That’s especially significant for niche creators. For example, automotive reviewers, where a long-term or perpetual license could close the door on a meaningful portion of their future income.
Our standard campaigns typically include three months of usage, with usage generally representing at least 25% of the creator’s total fee. A one-month license is often built into a creator’s base rate. A one-year license or perpetuity can command 2x or more of a creator’s typical rate, and sometimes, no price is high enough if the opportunity cost means walking away from future partnerships.
Tara Knight, COO, Creator Match
Perpetual usage rights shouldn’t exist, even when creators offer them. We tell our brand partners to set an expiration date.
Here’s why: creators’ likenesses have ongoing value. If a brand wants to keep running content after the initial licensing period, they should pay for that privilege, and creators should retain the right to end usage or renegotiate.
Our model: a 30-day license typically starts at 25% of the content cost per month, with declining rates for longer commitments. Paid promotion has a hard cutoff and organic usage should be able to be revoked when requested by the creator after their initial partnership window.
This isn’t creator-advocacy theater. We represent brands. But fair contracts protect both sides. A brand that respects creator rights builds better long-term partnerships than one that tries to squeeze perpetual value from a one-time fee. The creators producing your best content won’t work with you twice if you’re running their face in ads two years later without additional compensation.
Kurt Stadelman, Vice President of Talent Management, Pearpop
As a rule, I advise creators to steer clear of usage in perpetuity unless they’re fully confident it won’t create problems down the line. The core issue is uncertainty: you don’t know how much your audience or brand opportunities will grow. Lock in perpetual rights for a flat fee today, and in two years you may find you gave away far more value than you were paid for with zero leverage to renegotiate.
Usage in perpetuity also creates exclusivity headaches for creators. If that brand sits in a category you’d want to work in again, having their ad running indefinitely can block or complicate new partnerships in the same space.
On pricing, we typically build in the first 30 days of usage at little to no additional cost, since that’s standard campaign flighting. Beyond that, each additional month is priced at 5-10% of the total content fee. We try to cap initial usage terms at 6 months, with the option to revisit and negotiate an extension if the brand wants to keep running the content longer. This structure protects the creator’s future earning potential while still giving brands flexibility.
Courtney Canfield, Influencer Marketing Consultant & Content Creator
Brands that require creators to hand over usage rights in perpetuity are … lazy. There, I said it.
As someone who’s worked in Influencer Marketing for 14 years, I can tell you creators who understand the value of “forever” will charge quadruple their base rate for perpetuity, if they’ll sell it to you at all. And let’s be honest: there’s no reason a brand should be buying “forever usage.” You won’t be running a video shot on someone’s iPhone 14 in five years, after the styling’s dated, the slang’s dead, and partnering with that creator isn’t cool anymore.
From a creator perspective, perpetual usage means a brand could keep running my content even after I’m dead, after I (somehow) become president, marry into royalty, win a billion dollars and give it all to tax-the-rich political campaigns, or become the first influencer in space. Content shouldn’t outlive the person who made it or the moment it was made in. Brands don’t get to keep profiting off my likeness forever just because they signed me before I got big.
Usage should have an expiration date. Thirty to 180 days with paid renewals protects the brand’s budget “and” the creator’s ownership of their own image.
Bill Herndon, Founder & CEO, ATRX Agency
Perpetuity isn’t inherently fair or unfair. Fairness isn’t determined by whether usage rights expire. It’s determined by whether the value exchanged fairly reflects what both sides are receiving, giving up and risking.
A creator should have the right to negotiate a perpetual buyout or expiring usage with paid renewals. But perpetuity isn’t simply a longer usage window. It transfers future risk and reward. The brand assumes the risk that the content may lose value, while the creator gives up future renewal revenue and the ability to participate in potential appreciation.
There’s also opportunity cost. If Brand A buys perpetual rights and five years later is still running the creator’s ad, Brand B, a competitor, may hesitate to hire that creator for a major campaign.
That’s where Brand & Creator Stewardship matters. Fairness has to be established at the time of negotiation, based on the current value each side brings, the scope of the rights being purchased, and the reasonable potential for that value to scale.
Usage shouldn’t be priced by duration alone. Creator value, brand scale, media spend, likeness, exclusivity and commercial potential all matter. Perpetuity should be valued as a true buyout.
Erin Ally, Vice President, Influencer, Bobbie
There’s a convenience to perpetual usage on the brand side, but there is typically more nuance to when and why a brand may need this. While perpetual usage is something I think should be “on the table” for a brand, perpetual usage doesn’t always benefit the brand. It can be valuable in certain scenarios and some industries more than others. However, if a brand is working with a creator for lifestyle content, especially when featuring the creator in the content, limited usage can protect both the brand and creator in many instances. Should the brand need to part ways with the creator, the perpetual usage fee is not wasted. It also protects from future conflicts should the creator become more involved with a competitor. Ultimately, I think brands should have the option for perpetual usage at the right price point for the right asset – but it’s often not necessary.
Nita Patel, CMO, Lickly
I don’t think usage in perpetuity should be the default. Creator content has ongoing value, and if a brand continues to benefit from that content months or years after the original campaign, the creator should share in that value.
That doesn’t mean perpetual rights should never be an option. If both sides understand what’s being licensed and the creator is appropriately compensated for giving up future usage rights, it can make sense. But it should be a deliberate business decision, not boilerplate buried in a contract.
I prefer defined usage windows with renewal options because they give brands flexibility while recognizing that the value of a creator, their audience and their content can change significantly over time.
On pricing, I wouldn’t apply a universal multiplier because the value depends on the creator, content, channels, paid media spend and expected reach. But directionally, I’d treat 30 days as the base license, one year as a meaningful premium and perpetual rights as a substantial buyout. If a brand wants unlimited value indefinitely, the creator should be compensated accordingly.
Gerardo Sordo Fernandez, CEO & Founder, BrandMe
We don’t believe usage in perpetuity should be the default. Creator content is not just a production asset; it carries the creator’s image, credibility and cultural relevance, and that value can change significantly over time.
For most campaigns, usage rights should have a clear expiration date and the brand should have the option to renew if the content continues to perform. That creates a much fairer relationship: if an ad is still generating value for a brand one or two years later, the creator should participate in that extended value.
That said, perpetuity can be fair when everyone understands exactly what is being licensed and the compensation reflects it. The problem is when perpetual rights are buried in a standard agreement and priced almost the same as a short-term campaign.
At BrandMe, I would think about pricing usage as a multiplier on top of the creator’s base content fee. A 30-day paid media license might add roughly 20-30%, while a one-year license could add 75-150% depending on the creator, territories, platforms and media spend. True perpetuity should command a very significant premium – potentially 2x to 4x or more of the original content fee – because the creator is effectively giving up control of that asset forever.
My rule is simple: the longer the brand wants to capture the value of creator content, the more of that value should be shared with the creator.
Ace Gapuz, CEO, Blogapalooza Inc.
Usage rights should, by default, expire. Perpetuity may be appropriate in some cases, but it should never be buried in a standard creator agreement or priced like a single campaign deliverable.
Since many years ago, I have always championed separating the cost of creating content from the value of using it in paid media. A creator’s face, voice, and credibility can continue generating value for a brand long after the original post, and association to a brand through usage of content may limit future partnerships. Fair compensation should reflect such opportunity costs.
As a practical starting point, I would recommend including (and waiving) a 30-day usage as part of creator fees, then an additional 25-30% for every month of usage thereafter. A one-year license may reasonably command an additional 100-200% depending on channels, territories, and exclusivity, among many other factors. A true perpetual buyout should cost at least three to five times the creation fee, and some creators should decline it entirely for strategic reasons.
As a general rule though, if content keeps working and deriving value, the creator should continue participating in that value.
Shawn Munir, Founder & CEO, Yamammi Influencer Marketing Agency LLC
Perpetuity’s only fair if the price matches it, and most contracts don’t come close. I’ve seen it happen too many times: a brand licenses one post for one campaign, then it’s still running as a paid ad two years later with no extra payment. That’s not a deal, that’s the creator funding the brand’s ad spend for free. Usage windows should be the norm. 30 to 180 days covers a real campaign, and renewals keep both sides fair: brands pay for continued use, creators get paid for it.
On pricing, 30 days sits close to the original fee. A year runs 2-3x that, since you’re covering more than one flight. Perpetual should be priced like a buyout, 5x or more, paid upfront because you’re paying to never ask again. If a brand won’t pay buyout money for buyout rights, that says enough about whether perpetuity was ever fair.
Samantha Zink, Founder & CEO, Zink Talent
I don’t think brands should have the right to use creator content forever for a one-time fee. A creator’s content is an asset, and if a brand is continuing to use that asset to drive awareness, sales or paid media years later, the creator should continue to be compensated for it.
I’m a big believer in putting clear expiration dates around usage rights. Typically, we’ll negotiate usage in 30, 60, 90 or 180-day windows and then give the brand the option to renew. That gives the brand flexibility while also protecting the creator from having their face, likeness and content tied to a campaign indefinitely without any additional compensation.
When it comes to pricing, the longer the usage term, the higher the fee. A 30-day license may come with a smaller set fee, while a one-year license should be significantly more because the brand is receiving substantially more value. Most agents price usage as a percentage of the creator’s base rate, but I do things a little differently and use set fees based on the usage term. Perpetual usage, if a creator agrees to it at all, should come at a major premium because they are essentially giving up future earning potential on that asset forever.
For me, the biggest thing is making sure creators understand that usage rights have real value. The mistake is treating usage as a small contract add-on when, in reality, it can sometimes be worth as much as – or more than – the content creation itself.
Taylor Munn, Senior Talent Manager, The Digital Dept.
Perpetual usage is a no-go, full stop. You never know if a creator’s priorities are going to change (they could go from being vegan then full carnivore diet five years later) or if a brand’s priorities change (they get bought out and the once great ingredients get swapped out for cheaper alternatives).
Brands aren’t paying for the asset, they are paying for access to a hyper-engaged audience and the trust the creator has built with their community. If they’re just looking for an asset, they should do a commercial shoot.
I’ve had great success working out pre-negotiated usage rates with brands, so they know upfront how much it would cost to renew usage past the initial window we agree upon.
At the end of the day, it typically doesn’t make sense to use the content past a certain timeframe anyways. So many briefs are tied to a specific sale, holiday, or tentpole moment. Even if the content is more evergreen, fresh creative almost always makes sense to keep up with the ever-changing social landscape.
Andrii Salii, Audiovisual Producer, MIA Studio
It depends on the creator’s goals, but I would almost never give away usage in perpetuity.
A brand isn’t simply buying an asset. It’s renting the trust and connection you’ve built with your audience. The question is: are you comfortable letting that brand reuse your face, voice and credibility across paid media for years, while you receive nothing further?
For smaller creators, flexibility makes sense. Maybe you accept 12 months instead of 90 days to close an important first partnership. You could even negotiate a longer window for the right price. But there should still be an expiration date.
Because your value changes. A creator with 10,000 followers today may have 1 million five years from now. Your positioning, audience and even your relationship with that brand or industry may change completely.
So don’t optimize one contract purely for today’s cash. Define a usage window, price it accordingly, and charge for renewals.
You can sell your content. You can license your credibility. But I wouldn’t sell permanent access to your future self for a one-time fee.
Jessica Thorpe, CEO, parntrUP
Yes. Asking and paying a creator for rights in perpetuity is absolutely on the table. Whether it is fair – or not – is based on the specifics of the deal. If we rewind the clock, we used to pay creative agencies to make images and videos about products and we paid once and used it indefinitely. The same can apply to creators. They are hired resources to make content that the brand wants to use over time without ongoing payments. This works for everyday creators like the nano and micro influencers sourced on partnrUP.ai because it is understood that the brand is not engaging with them for their likeness or status. So what about the top tier? When working with larger influencers, I would guide my team to skip offer [sic] an influencer who is charging above 30% premium for 12-month usage rights.
Sam Royle, Founder, Volery
Licensing rules shouldn’t change just because we’ve shifted from traditional media to the Creator Economy.
Historically, brands paid production crews a one-time fee, but paid models for usage rights, licensing their face, image, and personal brand across specific platforms and regions. Brands have negotiated these terms for decades. Why treat creators any differently?
When you work with a creator, you aren’t just paying for content production. You are paying for the value of the person in that content, their reach, their credibility, and their direct connection to a target audience.
Content creation and media licensing are two distinct assets. The contract should reflect both.
Keith Pape, CEO, YellowPike Media
A friend of mine from childhood was in the 80s classic movie “Poltergeist.” He still gets a residual check today; it’s a great model for Hollywood, but not for marketing. Most products change or get discontinued within a few years, so why would a brand need to use a creator’s content in perpetuity? It doesn’t make sense.
A 30 to 180-day license is standard, and it works because it’s calculated as a percentage of the campaign rate. For products that actually last, like a movie, there are formulas for long-term usage; for most campaigns, however, perpetuity is overkill. I often see brands demand these rights and then not even use them. That’s budget that could have been used to drive more audience during the primary campaign window.
I’m usually arguing for shorter usage rights, or removing them entirely, rather than debating the cost of perpetuity. Let’s focus on the primary campaign window; it’s more effective. Shorter agreements keep things flexible, they keep the brand relevant, and they respect the creator’s work without overcomplicating the licensing process. Let’s stick to what actually delivers results.
Gary Garofalo, CEO, LoudCrowd
This is contrarian, but I don’t think usage windows ever make sense. The creator took the time to make the content; why should we limit the value that it creates? Both the brand “and” the creator would probably prefer a performance model where the content could keep generating value over time. It would save a lot of effort from both sides. Termination dates never make sense.
Alec Shankman, Founder & CEO, HeartRock Partners
Perpetuity is truly never a good idea. No one can predict the future and it’s more likely than not that a brand securing perpetual usage rights to creator content will carry immeasurable opportunity cost for the creator, if not worse. If you’re a print model being paid for stock photography … “maybe,” but I’ve personally even seen that take a turn for the worse and had to help a client legally maneuver circumstances along those lines once the client later became famous. Though for a creator, who more likely than not is already building a meaningful business around their own name, image, likeness and/or content, selling perpetual usage rights to a 3rd-party will almost never work out well in the long run.
Evan Horowitz, Co-Founder & CEO, Movers+Shakers
We believe every creator has the right to make the deal that works best for them. Brands should be able to negotiate perpetuity usage when it works for both the brand and creator. Perpetuity usage is common for talent earlier in their careers and, if a creator doesn’t have concerns about long-term use, can be a lucrative opportunity. It also simplifies tracking and paperwork for both sides.
The biggest consideration is what the creator may be giving up in the future. If that content continues running for years, it could limit the creator’s ability to work with competitors or create conflicts with future partnerships. Creators should understand those implications upfront before agreeing to perpetual usage.
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Check Out Our Podcast