I agree. $0.20 is a joke for image usage, but unfortunately it's a sign of the times with the digital revolution. As photography gets easier, and there are more photographers, and the bar gets lowered as the market floods. I suppose if an amateur has never gotten a check in the mail, then $100 seems like a lot. Of course if you are going to pay taxes on that income in the states, you can take 40% away from that right away which turns it into 12 cents per image use, and I can't imagine making a living on that. Point-n-shoot digi cams have spelled the demise of the photographer for the local newspaper too. Why would they pay for both a reporter and a photographer, when the reporter can just snap a shot for the story with his cell phone? It's too bad, because as I watch the old photogs from my local paper retire, I've noticed a serious lack of interesting photos in the paper. Art is valuable, and a common problem with all sorts of artists is that they devalue their work. Personally I feel like I'm giving commercial interests a heck of a deal when I allow single usage rights to an image for $200.00. 20 cents pays for just over 1/3rd of a sec of my time at my minimum commercial rate, and according to the photogs I look up to, I'm still too cheap.