Would you welcome 70% royalties on your stock image sales

[KmH]

All I am looking for is simple yes or no answers, ...
If you like the idea say Yes if not say No.

No.

 

[imagemaker46]

lets see if I have this straight. We give you pictures and then you contact Getty and who ever else might look at them, if Getty decides they want one of them, they pay $10.00 for the image(just using a round number) and then you take your $3.00, and then the photographer gets $7.00. While that does make sence, how do you make enough money when you still have to deal with all the other costs running the business? In the mean time, Getty turns around and sells the image for $1000.00, of which only Getty makes the money on, as they have already paid you the $10.00. I'm seeing a major flaw in your business plan. Why wouldn't I just contact Getty, and take the 40-50% from them?

 

[orljustin]

lets see if I have this straight. We give you pictures and then you contact Getty and who ever else might look at them, if Getty decides they want one of them, they pay $10.00 for the image(just using a round number) and then you take your $3.00, and then the photographer gets $7.00. While that does make sence, how do you make enough money when you still have to deal with all the other costs running the business? In the mean time, Getty turns around and sells the image for $1000.00, of which only Getty makes the money on, as they have already paid you the $10.00. I'm seeing a major flaw in your business plan. Why wouldn't I just contact Getty, and take the 40-50% from them?

That's not how stock works.

Distributor has deal with Getty. Image is placed on Getty. Getty licenses to someone for $100. Getty pays distributor 20%. Distributor pays you %70. So, you get $14 out of the 100 for the privilege of distributing through said distributor. Just wait until Getty redistributes that, and you get 70% of 20% of 20%...

 

[imagemaker46]

My point was that with the existing industry paying 30% at most, including Getty, who wouldn't want 70%? Whether that structure is viable, I kind of doubt it.

I agree that it'd be hard for Nev here to compete with Getty, but at the same time it'd be easier for individual photographers to comepete with one another at a smaller agency than at a mega agency like Getty or Corbis.

We're talking images that sell for a couple of dollars - literally. How much time and effort are you willing to put into getting another 40 or 80 CENTS into your hands, or even $4 bucks, assuming you could sell one of your images for 10 bucks?

A time magazine cover a few years ago earned the photographer a whopping $30 from a stock agency, as I recall. He'd have gotten an extra $12 bucks out of the deal with a 40% markup. Big whoop! And he probably has 100's of photos prepared and uploaded that just sit there, earning nothing, as buyers choose one of the MILLIONS of others that are essentially just like them.

The photographer that made the $30 was excited until he found out that the going rates for magazines covers are considerably higher, unfortunately this is what happens when photos end up in the low end stock agencies. Companies like Getty or Corbis are in the busines of making money and their rates when dealing with publications are at the high end. Time is going to be thrilled to buy a photo for $30, they know they got a deal. Any of the magazines that I have done work with, selling my own stock has been between $1500-2500, which is closer to the going rate for covers, inside pictures vary depending on size, location, and the magazines. Many have standard "insertion rates" for the photos.

 

[gsgary]

Thanks for all your comments but I think we have gone a bit off track.


Before I shell out thousands of pounds to create a new website and database, I simply want to test the water
as to whether there was any interest in a new agency that does not sell images to clients directly, but instead
distributes photographers work through a network of the best agencies within individual territories.



I also would say that it is a no brainer that photographers would prefer 70% instead of 40%, but business is not that simple.



I too also agree that the stock industry is a ticking time bomb, but for only for those agencies that devalue the imagery and there contributors.
Stock imagery will always be needed, but a what cost is yet to be decided


In laymen's terms, what i am asking is:
Would photographers be interested in an agency that did not sell images directly to buyers, but instead used a network of distributing agencies (which would include Getty and Corbis) to sell the work, and in return receive royalties of 70%?



All I am looking for is simple yes or no answers, but if you would like to add a little more please feel free
If you like the idea say Yes if not say No.



Many thanks

Yes, but going back to the Time magazine cover that Buckster mention got only $30, wouldn't that be the price that you would get and then we get 70% of that which is i think is $21 (in my head)

 

[imagemaker46]

Only a stock agency with no experience in negotiating fees would have agreed to $30.

 

[Buckster]

Only a stock agency with no experience in negotiating fees would have agreed to $30.

That was payout from the agency to the photographer. They negotiated it very well for themselves, so I'd say they had plenty of experience in that department. The photographer didn't, but likely agreed to that kind of low-end payout as the image was submitted to the agency.

 

[imagemaker46]

Only a stock agency with no experience in negotiating fees would have agreed to $30.

That was payout from the agency to the photographer. They negotiated it very well for themselves, so I'd say they had plenty of experience in that department. The photographer didn't, but likely agreed to that kind of low-end payout as the image was submitted to the agency.

I went back and re-read a couple of articles, that's what istock paid the photographer, it hasn't said what Time paid istock for the photo, that would be interesting. The photographer was pretty happy, says it will make a great tear sheet, unfortunately that may very well be his one and only 15 minutes of fame. Most of what I read from other people was that he got screwed by istock. It really doesn't send a positive message. I'm guessing that istock didn't make a big chunk off the photo either.

Sadly I think it's the way of the future for photography.

 

[Buckster]

Only a stock agency with no experience in negotiating fees would have agreed to $30.

That was payout from the agency to the photographer. They negotiated it very well for themselves, so I'd say they had plenty of experience in that department. The photographer didn't, but likely agreed to that kind of low-end payout as the image was submitted to the agency.

I went back and re-read a couple of articles, that's what istock paid the photographer, it hasn't said what Time paid istock for the photo, that would be interesting. The photographer was pretty happy, says it will make a great tear sheet, unfortunately that may very well be his one and only 15 minutes of fame. Most of what I read from other people was that he got screwed by istock. It really doesn't send a positive message. I'm guessing that istock didn't make a big chunk off the photo either.

Sadly I think it's the way of the future for photography.

Sadly, I think you're correct. I don't envy those who worked hard to make a living as photographers, especially with the turns it's taken over the past several years. Being an engineer has been a much more stable living for me, and photography remains a wonderful, no-pressure hobby.

 

[imagemaker46]

I have a lot of friends around the world that are in the same boat that I am, struggling to just stay in the business, it really started about eight years ago for most, big agencies that I worked with were being put out of business by Getty, tough to compete against companies that play with the money Getty has access to. More and more people using cameras to make a few bucks on the side. I hear it all the time that these people aren't thecompetition, and if you are good enough it shouldn't matter, well it really does. Not so easy anymore, and not as much fun.

 

[KmH]

The image Time used on their cover came from a microstock agency and had a Royalty-Free (RF) use license.

Getty and Corbis are not microstock agencies, and they both also offer Rights-Managed (RM) use licenses.

 

[Buckster]

The image Time used on their cover came from a microstock agency and had a Royalty-Free (RF) use license.Getty and Corbis are not microstock agencies, and they both also offer Rights-Managed (RM) use licenses.

Maybe that's why Time magazine went with a microstock agency instead.