Royalty free images

[Claire]

I've heard about it, but can someone give me the lowdown of what it is?

[IndyJeff]

Claire basically royalty free images are dirt cheap. The photographer has no say so in how the images are used and receives no monetary compensation from uses, other than the original payment.

Let's put this into practical terms. You sell an image, I sell an image. You sell it royalty free for $3.00 and it is used in a magazine. I sell mine for $300.00 for a one time use in a magazine. An advertiser sees both images and thinks either one would work for their new ad campaign. He calls both magazines and wants info on the images.
They give him my name an contact info. He calls and based upon his use of the image I am willing to license that image for $1200 for one year use in magazine ads.
Your magazine tells him they have your image as a royalty free and for ad space cost they will design an ad for use in thier magazine alone.
Now if they use your image, the magazine makes $2000 a month from this guys ad. You on the other hand have made nothing but your original $3.00.
If they use my image I have made $1200, the magazine makes money on the ad space and the advertiser can use my ad in any magazine, giving me even more exposure.
Your image makes you nothing, the magazine makes $2000 a month off the ad, the advertiser is limited to that one magazine but, the use of your image costs them nothing.

This is over simplified, and pricing is just off the top of my head but, you get the idea. Royalty free is not good for photographers. It is a great deal for advertisers, magazines, webmasters etc etc. becuase they will make money off using your image and you don't make anything but the original dirt cheap purchase price.

[gmen]

Jeff gives a good example in practical terms.

A royalty free image attracts no royalties. In other words a photographer sells an image to a client or clients for a flat fee. The client can then use the image in any shape or form (subject to suitable model/property releases). The photographer will not receive any more income from that image once it has been sold.

Many royalty free agencies sell images for a pittance - sums like the $3.00 that Jeff mentions are not uncommon. In fact some sites sell images for as little as $0.50. Hmmm. The photographer may not even find out who is using their image.

The alternative is to licence the use of an image. Granting a licence enables the photographer to retain control of the image and to charge for a particular type of usage as well as fixing a time period for that usage. For example, a photographer may supply an image for a company brochure - the price charged will be based on the print run, the size/positioning of the image, the lifespan of the brochure, etc.

The process of negotiating a price for a licenced image can be complicated, but the rewards are much greater. The licence granted can be non-exclusive or exclusive (for very sought after images). Other terms that you will hear that apply to licences are rights managed and rights protected.

Unlike some, I feel that there can be a place for royalty free images - but not at the ridiculously low rates that are becoming the norm. The royalty free rate can be linked to the file size supplied to the client and may be suited to making a quick sale for an 'average', 'mundane' or 'stock' image. A good agency will sell images royalty free for several hundred dollars each, not for a few cents.

In one business model, a photographer may choose to market some of his/her images as royalty free (to maximise the profit potential of the mundane portion of his/her archive) and to licence others. Photographers' archives are growing and growing and it may be unrealistic to try and licence every single sale. The difficulty comes in deciding which images should be licenced and which should not ;)

---- Gavin

[Mark_Cohran]

Well, these guys explained it much better than I could, but I might add there is a growing number of web-based stock photo agencies that are offering ridiculously low royalties as well. It seems the advent of digital has helped accelerate the trend of anyone with a camera calling themselves a photographer.

It's a touchy subject to some, but I think a photographer is more than just a person with a camera and a willingness to shot lots of photos. This isn't the thread for such a discussion, but I think it's related.

Mark