First British Rights (also known as First British Serial Rights) is the traditional form of licence granted to commissioners of photography. It allows the client exclusive first use of the work produced, after which the photographer regains full rights to re-sell the material. If the commissioning client later wishes to make further use of the work by republishing or publishing in additional media or territories, a further fee must be negotiated.

The advantages of First British Rights are: 

• The client need pay for only the minimum rights that they need. This keeps their costs to a minimum.
• The possibility of resale allows the photographer to work cheaper than is viable for work that cannot be resold.
• It is fairer to both parties and recognises the intention of copyright law, that freelances are independent small businesses who need to retain the title to their assets.
• The gearing of use to reward is an incentive for the photographer to try hard to produce work of maximum value to the client
• Exclusivity is protected for the client. The photographer cannot sell the work to a competitor or anywhere else until after the client has used the photos. In the case of magazines and newspapers, resale rights are restricted whilst the edition remains on sale.

The disadvantages are:

• Keeping track of reuse across diverse media is practically impossible for the photographer, who must rely on client honesty
• The administrative burden of tracking further uses and negotiating additional usage fees is inconvenient to clients
• Clients may feel they are being 'held to ransom' over fees for subsequent use.

In recent years commissioning clients have often used market forces - the oversupply of hungry photographers - to move away from First British Rights contracting. It is now commonplace for commissioners to require copyright assignment - exactly the right that an employer has over an employee's work but with none of the costs - or a perpetual licence to republish without further fee. Either deprives the photographer of revenue, but fees have not increased to reflect this. Worse, it has led to a perception of photographers as interchangeable and disposable content suppliers rather than creative partners.