Posted by Tad Bowman on October 11, 2006 at 7:33 PM
Hi,
I was wondering whether folks used the Rights Managed or Royalty Free option (or mixture) when selling photos via a stock agency. I am evaluating using a stock agency (for the first time) to sell photographs and was hoping I could get people's opinion and why they sell that way.
Thanks,
Tad
Posted by Nelcha Cross on October 12, 2006 at 1:32 AM
Please educate me...
I am confused ...if you are giving an image "Royalty Free" how is that selling it??
I am always hungry for knowledge.....
In gratitude,
Nelcha
Posted by Randy Beacham on October 12, 2006 at 5:26 AM
Hi Tad,
I've worked with a couple small stock agencies, both whom worked only licensing Rights Managed photos ( one was bought out by a larger online agency that uses Royalty Free but I had the option of not signing a new contract, which I didn't).
I sold very few photos through the agency that was bought out, the other agency is a niche agency that specializes in one state and that one is making me a small but steady amount per year.
While I haven't tried the royalty free route in my opinion it is a dead end road for photographers unless perhaps someone has a huge amount of photos to market--like over 100,000. With royalty free it's one small sale and that's basically it, which is why it becomes a numbers game--the Walmart marketing strategy of high volume, small sales price. The only ones who might make a profit are the stock agencies themselves. Whenever this topic comes up on a discussion thread I never hear anyone who doesn't have a large file of stock photos say they're actually making a steady income from royalty free.
The other thing that makes royalty free a bad move is that once you decide to market an image as royalty free you can no longer market them as rights managed. I have a handful of images that have made me money over and over again, which just isn't possible with royalty free.For instance, I had a non-profit business that wanted to buy an image and be able to use it wherever, whenever. This was about five years ago and, while I came down on the price of the initial sale, I have since made over $3000 licensing the same image to the same company for a wide variety of uses.
Personally I think your best option is to market your photos yourself via the internet. More and more companies search for images online--especially hard to find subjects or locations. It takes more time but in the long run is much more profitable.
Nelcha, if you havent' heard the term "royalty free" before it basically means selling an image to a client who can then use the photo wherever, whenever, forever. Rights managed, which has been the traditional way people license the use of photos, typically means that you license the use of the image for a one-time use. If the client wants to use the same image again in a different outlet they must pay for that additional use. In theory royalty free might have worked if whoever purchases the images is willing to pay a lot of money to use an image over and over again, but that's just not how it works. Some people are selling photos as royalty free for mere dollars and losing the ability to ever sell the image again to the same company. And you can't market photos both ways because if you market images as rights managed then you need to know wherever the photo has been used. Many clients choose this route because they want to know that the photo they purchase is more unique, or hasn't just been purchased by a competing company. Thanks, Randy
Posted by Michael Wade on October 12, 2006 at 9:38 AM
Hi Tad,
Recently I thought I might try my hand at some of these stock photo agencies that I kept hearing about. Like many, I read the article recently in a major photo magazine and decided to go online and sign up. I signed up with 4 and was accepted by 3 of them. I knew the risk involved in letting my images go for 20 cents each, but the numbers game ran through my head. I though, why not sell this image for 20 cents to a million people? The fact is you won't sell the image to even 1,000 people. I researched the top downloaded photos on each site and the best ones had perhaps 400 downloads. Remember, I said the BEST downloads. The average is about 10-20 downloads on a photo .... if you get any. To me 400 downloads at .20 comes to about $80. It may take you years to get the 400 downloads. Do you want to wait 10 years to get your $80?
The problem is even worse with nature photos because there are a gazillion of them on there. My red barn photo looked good until I searched for one on the stock site. I then saw 100 other red barn photos and realized that I would sink in a sea of similar images. There is no way to win at this microstock photo site business. You have to get the image, edit the image, upload the image, keyword the image, title the image and then HOPE it gets approved! I cancelled my accounts because I can't sit in front of a computer 24 hours a day and post pictures that MIGHT get approved and MIGHT get downloaded for pennies each. I don't know how anyone can pay a model or travel around the world and then go through the process mentioned above with no guarantee of money involved.
I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather give my photos away to people who appreciate the hard work, expensive equipment and my time. I certainly won't ever think again about stock photo sites where great photographers are being used to make somebody rich. There is a reason why one of the better known stock sites sold for 50 million dollars last year. They have found a way to prey upon talented people who desire to show their work and make a little money for extra equipment and they will get rich doing it.
Good luck with whatever you do.
------- Michael Wade
Posted by Randy Beacham on October 12, 2006 at 12:59 PM
I'm glad to hear your perspective Michael, which is just what I expected. And as you say, the nature photos aren't the ones getting all the downloads. It's really like infomercials where you hear someone say "I MADE $10,000 YESTERDAY AND DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TO WORK AT IT!!". Yeah, the best photos may have 400 downloads and it's probably an extremely unique image that, if the photographer did a little more homework, probably could have made many times more by licensing the photo himself through a rights managed model.
I think the microstock model is pretty much a variation of a pyramid scheme, in this case the owner of the agency is probably the only one making money and it's happening because they do as Michael says, prey upon talented people who have little business knowledge.
You have to be more creative in selling photography today than years ago. Whenever the subject of stock photo sales comes up people always mention how great John Shaw and his business of photography book is (which helped guide me when I first started) yet because of factors like the ease of digital, the glut of nature photos, the prescence of royalty free marketing, etc., that kind of business model simply won't work today, at least looking at stock sales as your sole source of photography income.
While I've been selling editorial stock for years now I've begun working this past year on making more income from local sources. Yesterday was my first photo exhibit with framed prints. It was a slow evening and I only sold two prints but I had a real interesting time talking with the other photographer who was showing his work. From what he said I don't think he ever shot with slide film, only digital, and has never tried and has no desire to sale to editorial markets outside of his local area, yet he's come up with some real uique and creative ideas for selling prints. He lives in a small town but it's a real tourist attraction. What he did was decide to photograph the large lake that's nearby by trying to find unique viewpoints from all around the lake, which is Lake Pend O'reille, one of the largest lakes in the western states. He has learned how to stitch images together and has some incredible panoramics of the lake and region, as well as put together triptych's of animals like dragonfly's and digitally combined a print showing the same tree in all four seasons. The panoramics he has had great luck in selling to both tourists and people who have retired around the lake and like having an image from the area. All of the photos were taken with a simple sony digital camera. The dragonfly's, which were incredible, were three good photos out of about 500 photos so I'm sure he would not have been successful if he'd been shooting film and thinking of film costs. He has I'm sure far less money invested in photography than myself and yet, because of digital technology, is able to make a very decent income from his hobby.
Anyway, my point is that if you're willing to think creatively and outside the box so to speak, there's always markets to sale photos, it just might not be how we've thought of selling photos in the past. As Michael said, why spend all that time working on a computer to get photos on a website where you'll literally only make a few dollars on. Thanks, Randy
Posted by Dan Borzynski on October 12, 2006 at 2:53 PM
Nelcha, just to be clear. Royalty-free basically means that a company gives you a small amount of money as payment. In exchange, they get to do pretty much whatever they want without making further payments to you.
In short, your get enough money to fill your car's gas tank and the art director gets a bonus for cutting costs, both now for the use of your image and down the road for using your image again and again and again and again and...
The September issue of PDN has an article that will interest you and many others. It's titled "The Local Lowdown" and written by Kathleen Kearns. It's all about shooting for city magazines in some of the bigger cities, but does a nice job of highlighting the potential for smaller markets. I won't go into more detail other than to say it features assignment shooting as a means of making money while portfolio building and getting high profile local exposure. The rates cited should forever chase you away from doing more than writing the words Royalty Free on toilet paper, then flushing it where it belongs.
We've built our business mostly on small markets, and results are good enough that we don't even bother with national submissions or stock agencies. Several stock agencies come to us for specific images, but the shoe is definitely on the other foot in negotiating with an agency under those circumstances!
Posted by Tad Bowman on October 12, 2006 at 10:38 PM
Thanks everyone for the replies. I appreciate the wealth of information shared.
Posted by Fadil Aziz on October 14, 2006 at 1:53 AM
Roughly about 20%-30% of our images will contribute to 80% of our income selling stock. Some images will be sold and sold again. So, it's difficult to get enough money by selling through RF. Rights Managed is the way.
Nelcha, perhaps a quick search in internet will reveal more about RF & RM, or go to my article about RM. It is actually intended for buyer but hopefully useful.
Posted by Martin Beebee on October 17, 2006 at 4:23 PM
I just came across another variation of licensing images being offered by Getty, which appears to be a cross between Rights-Managed and Royalty-Free: Rights-Ready. From what I can tell, it’s basically a ten-year license targeted for a specific use (brochures, web, editorial, etc.). Publishers get to use the image for that use as much as they want (similar to RF), but have to re-license it if they want an additional use (similar to RM). Prices are fixed, and -- as you might expect -- are somewhere between the two extremes.
As already mentioned, the reality of the nature photography market (lots of images) is forcing us to re-think the business model of stock photography, and let go of the idea that we can shoot whatever strikes our fancy and hope to get traditional RM prices. If you have something unique and/or targeted that’s one thing, but it’s folly to think you can hold out for four figures on your great (but common) coastal sunset.
That's an interesting approach from Getty, and exactly in line with what many of our business clients are looking for. Yes, they're hoping to save some money but at least as important to them, they're also trying to simplify the process of administering photos, usage and contracts. I'll have to study this a lot more carefully, but it appears to respond to market needs while not shorting the photographer. I.e., it looks like an additional option we can present to our clients, probably generating extra sales in the process.
Discussion
10 repliesI was wondering whether folks used the Rights Managed or Royalty Free option (or mixture) when selling photos via a stock agency. I am evaluating using a stock agency (for the first time) to sell photographs and was hoping I could get people's opinion and why they sell that way.
Thanks,
Tad
I am confused ...if you are giving an image "Royalty Free" how is that selling it??
I am always hungry for knowledge.....
In gratitude,
Nelcha
I've worked with a couple small stock agencies, both whom worked only licensing Rights Managed photos ( one was bought out by a larger online agency that uses Royalty Free but I had the option of not signing a new contract, which I didn't).
I sold very few photos through the agency that was bought out, the other agency is a niche agency that specializes in one state and that one is making me a small but steady amount per year.
While I haven't tried the royalty free route in my opinion it is a dead end road for photographers unless perhaps someone has a huge amount of photos to market--like over 100,000. With royalty free it's one small sale and that's basically it, which is why it becomes a numbers game--the Walmart marketing strategy of high volume, small sales price. The only ones who might make a profit are the stock agencies themselves. Whenever this topic comes up on a discussion thread I never hear anyone who doesn't have a large file of stock photos say they're actually making a steady income from royalty free.
The other thing that makes royalty free a bad move is that once you decide to market an image as royalty free you can no longer market them as rights managed. I have a handful of images that have made me money over and over again, which just isn't possible with royalty free.For instance, I had a non-profit business that wanted to buy an image and be able to use it wherever, whenever. This was about five years ago and, while I came down on the price of the initial sale, I have since made over $3000 licensing the same image to the same company for a wide variety of uses.
Personally I think your best option is to market your photos yourself via the internet. More and more companies search for images online--especially hard to find subjects or locations. It takes more time but in the long run is much more profitable.
Nelcha, if you havent' heard the term "royalty free" before it basically means selling an image to a client who can then use the photo wherever, whenever, forever. Rights managed, which has been the traditional way people license the use of photos, typically means that you license the use of the image for a one-time use. If the client wants to use the same image again in a different outlet they must pay for that additional use. In theory royalty free might have worked if whoever purchases the images is willing to pay a lot of money to use an image over and over again, but that's just not how it works. Some people are selling photos as royalty free for mere dollars and losing the ability to ever sell the image again to the same company. And you can't market photos both ways because if you market images as rights managed then you need to know wherever the photo has been used. Many clients choose this route because they want to know that the photo they purchase is more unique, or hasn't just been purchased by a competing company. Thanks, Randy
Recently I thought I might try my hand at some of these stock photo agencies that I kept hearing about. Like many, I read the article recently in a major photo magazine and decided to go online and sign up. I signed up with 4 and was accepted by 3 of them. I knew the risk involved in letting my images go for 20 cents each, but the numbers game ran through my head. I though, why not sell this image for 20 cents to a million people? The fact is you won't sell the image to even 1,000 people. I researched the top downloaded photos on each site and the best ones had perhaps 400 downloads. Remember, I said the BEST downloads. The average is about 10-20 downloads on a photo .... if you get any. To me 400 downloads at .20 comes to about $80. It may take you years to get the 400 downloads. Do you want to wait 10 years to get your $80?
The problem is even worse with nature photos because there are a gazillion of them on there. My red barn photo looked good until I searched for one on the stock site. I then saw 100 other red barn photos and realized that I would sink in a sea of similar images. There is no way to win at this microstock photo site business. You have to get the image, edit the image, upload the image, keyword the image, title the image and then HOPE it gets approved! I cancelled my accounts because I can't sit in front of a computer 24 hours a day and post pictures that MIGHT get approved and MIGHT get downloaded for pennies each. I don't know how anyone can pay a model or travel around the world and then go through the process mentioned above with no guarantee of money involved.
I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather give my photos away to people who appreciate the hard work, expensive equipment and my time. I certainly won't ever think again about stock photo sites where great photographers are being used to make somebody rich. There is a reason why one of the better known stock sites sold for 50 million dollars last year. They have found a way to prey upon talented people who desire to show their work and make a little money for extra equipment and they will get rich doing it.
Good luck with whatever you do.
------- Michael Wade
I think the microstock model is pretty much a variation of a pyramid scheme, in this case the owner of the agency is probably the only one making money and it's happening because they do as Michael says, prey upon talented people who have little business knowledge.
You have to be more creative in selling photography today than years ago. Whenever the subject of stock photo sales comes up people always mention how great John Shaw and his business of photography book is (which helped guide me when I first started) yet because of factors like the ease of digital, the glut of nature photos, the prescence of royalty free marketing, etc., that kind of business model simply won't work today, at least looking at stock sales as your sole source of photography income.
While I've been selling editorial stock for years now I've begun working this past year on making more income from local sources. Yesterday was my first photo exhibit with framed prints. It was a slow evening and I only sold two prints but I had a real interesting time talking with the other photographer who was showing his work. From what he said I don't think he ever shot with slide film, only digital, and has never tried and has no desire to sale to editorial markets outside of his local area, yet he's come up with some real uique and creative ideas for selling prints. He lives in a small town but it's a real tourist attraction. What he did was decide to photograph the large lake that's nearby by trying to find unique viewpoints from all around the lake, which is Lake Pend O'reille, one of the largest lakes in the western states. He has learned how to stitch images together and has some incredible panoramics of the lake and region, as well as put together triptych's of animals like dragonfly's and digitally combined a print showing the same tree in all four seasons. The panoramics he has had great luck in selling to both tourists and people who have retired around the lake and like having an image from the area. All of the photos were taken with a simple sony digital camera. The dragonfly's, which were incredible, were three good photos out of about 500 photos so I'm sure he would not have been successful if he'd been shooting film and thinking of film costs. He has I'm sure far less money invested in photography than myself and yet, because of digital technology, is able to make a very decent income from his hobby.
Anyway, my point is that if you're willing to think creatively and outside the box so to speak, there's always markets to sale photos, it just might not be how we've thought of selling photos in the past. As Michael said, why spend all that time working on a computer to get photos on a website where you'll literally only make a few dollars on. Thanks, Randy
In short, your get enough money to fill your car's gas tank and the art director gets a bonus for cutting costs, both now for the use of your image and down the road for using your image again and again and again and again and...
We've built our business mostly on small markets, and results are good enough that we don't even bother with national submissions or stock agencies. Several stock agencies come to us for specific images, but the shoe is definitely on the other foot in negotiating with an agency under those circumstances!
Nelcha, perhaps a quick search in internet will reveal more about RF & RM, or go to my article about RM. It is actually intended for buyer but hopefully useful.
Understand the Basics of Licensing Photo
As already mentioned, the reality of the nature photography market (lots of images) is forcing us to re-think the business model of stock photography, and let go of the idea that we can shoot whatever strikes our fancy and hope to get traditional RM prices. If you have something unique and/or targeted that’s one thing, but it’s folly to think you can hold out for four figures on your great (but common) coastal sunset.
Thanks!