When I was recently interviewed by Photonetcast, it became clear that my position on the best strategy for licensing rights to images is misunderstood, so it is time for another explanation. Granted, my position is radical, so bear with me.

Though unit sales are declining for many iStockphoto sellers, many of the same people are also seeing significant revenue increases. Here’s how.

Last November Tom Grill wrote on the subject of volume relative to price and said this rather obvious formula is indicative of the reason behind the plight facing contributors to stock photo industry today as it transitions from a high-priced print usage system to a high-volume digital system of economics. Stated simply, it means that a stock photographer today needs to adapt image output to mass marketing at lower prices – something easier said than done. A stock shooter makes the same amount of return from making 50 sales at $200 apiece as making 200 sales at $50 apiece. This begs the question: Is this equation in marketing transition actually occurring? Like it or not, the industry is changing dramatically, and the winners will be those who can adapt to the new paradigm.

Veer has relaunched its Web site, billing the new treatment as uncomplicated. While Veer still carries traditionally priced stills, it is certainly catering to the no-hassle customer segment with simplified licensing and prices that span the gamut—starting at $1.

This story provides links to a series of articles that include the results of a photographer income survey, analysis of the sales of microstock photographers, the size of the market for stock photography and other data useful to understanding stock photo industry trends.

There are a number of stories on this site that will aid you in determining what to charge for a stock photo usage. Below is a list of story titles and the number of credits required to read the entire story. Click on the detailed description link and it will take you to a short description of what is included in the full story. Click on the Story link and it will take you directly to the story and deduct the appropriate number of credits from your account.

If you are in the stock imagery business and want to stay current with worldwide industry trends the annual CEPIC Congress is a must event to attend. Held every year in early June - this year in Dublin, Ireland at the brand new Aviva Stadium - it was an opportunity to meet and greet industry leaders and exchange ideas. Traditionally CEPIC has been an organization focused on the needs of those who license rights to traditional customers, mostly larger commercial organizations. This year one day was devoted to a New Media Conference (microstock). This event was very well attended by traditional sellers, many still wary of microstock and not ready to embrace it fully, but also accepting that the $400 million a year business is a major force in the industry and here to stay.  

U.S. educational publishers are admitting to more and more unauthorized uses during the past decade and quietly entering into out-of-court settlements with an increasing number of image suppliers for large numbers of uses. In cases where the original license fee was well under $1,000 the publishers are now paying multi-thousands of dollars to settle these claims.

On LinkedIn’s ASMP group James Cavanaugh outlined the following client request, “A client wants you to create photographs that they can use on social network sites so they can "go viral" to promote their company. It means potentially countless people may use your copyrighted work,” and he asked “How would you approach such a request?”
This story provides my answer.

A comprehensive comparison of the various sizing and pricing strategies between the top 6 microstock photography sites.

If you license rights to your photos for textbook use then here are a few articles you should read.

What is top-quality photography for a major advertising campaign worth? Evidently, art buyers at Campbell-Ewald, one of the largest advertising agencies in the U.S., think $2,500 for “all advertising” and “all print” rights is fair and reasonable, as evidenced by a recent negotiation for the use of one of Hans Halberstadt’s photos.

Is it time to institute a system of floor prices for the use of rights-managed images for editorial purposes? Is there any price so low—$50, $30 or $20—that the image creator would prefer not to make the sale? This article explores this issue and suggests a strategy that could benefit rights managed photographers and agencies alike.

This story provides links to a five part series of articles designed to help photographers understand the major trends impacting the industry in 2010 and help them plan for the future. We outline some of the issues to consider, new business models to explore and things to focus on in order to have a profitable business. Following the first five stories are links to some additional articles on the business of stock photography that may be of interest.

As methods of supplying educational information to students change and schools adopt more and more electronic tools and techniques, photographers not only need to revise their image production strategies, but also to examine the way they will charge for their services in the future.

This story provides links to some of the stories on this site that may be of interest to someone new to the stock photography business, or someone who might to have a brief refresher course on some of the things that have been happening in the last few years. Many of these stories will also give you some idea of developing trends and what the future might hold.

In the next few years, there will be two major trends in the education business: There will be less demand for books as a teaching resource. Electronic “learning objects” will be used to a much greater degree in classroom and online instruction. Photographers who agree that these changes will occur, and who supply images to those producing materials for educational use, should begin to restructure their businesses and produce content that will be in demand by this new educational delivery system.

Sometimes there is a silver lining when your stock agency gets acquired or you get kicked out of the agency. For example, clients that previously licensed Stock Connection imagery through Jupiterimages now have to re-license them directly, because Getty Images has phased out some content.

As newspapers and magazines fold, or at the very least tighten their belts, it is becoming harder and harder for freelance editorial photographers used to traveling the world to produce major enterprise stories or get financial backing for such coverage. Most picture stories now appear on newspaper and magazine web sites rather than in the printed publications. There are two advantages to this shift. First, it is possible to show more images and provide a more comprehensive look at the subject matter. In addition we are learning that a large number of readers are willing to spend time looking at these stories. Nevertheless, the question of how to fund such projects raises some serious issues. Read my comments and a response from Stephen Mayes, Director of VII Photo, a company that faces this problem every day.

Street vending your photography is not for everybody.  But if you can live within the income limits, are innovative, like the outdoors, and truly enjoy people- you can have a lot of fun.  Experience and suggestions from NYC.

One of the key things to understand about stock photography is why some customers are willing to pay more than others to use an image. Most photographers want to believe customers will pay more when the image is of “better quality”, or more technically perfect. They want to believe that when they increase production values, build better sets, use better looking models, use people who look more “real” and when they generally spend more to produce an image customers will pay more to use it. They want to believe that if an image is shot from a helicopter, or if they had to travel around the world to get it that it should command a higher price. They want to charge more for niche subject matter.

If stock photography as a profession is going to survive we’re going to have to find a way to develop a two-tier pricing system. One tier would be for commercial use of images and the other for personal and small use. Microstock sellers have proved in the last few years that there is a huge group of customers out there who use images for personal and very small business uses. They will pay something to use images, just not very much. The problem with microstock is not that they sell images to these customers, it is that they sell image files to large commercial users for the same low prices they charge those with small budgets.

What an image is worth to a customer depends entirely on the customer’s intended use. The size of the file delivered has very little to do with how an image might be used, or the value the customer will receive from using it. Granted, there are limits as to how a very small file can be used. But, there are many ways with widely varying values that a medium sized file can be used. The biggest problem with royalty-free licensing, and particularly microstock pricing, is not that it prices certain uses very low, but that the system of pricing by file size has tried to ignore use in an effort to achieve simplicity.

There is a persistent idea among many image creators that a photographer somehow devalues his work if he ever licenses it for low prices. There are several things to think about in this regard.To begin with, if you are going to license your work as right-managed (RM) “based on use” and if you are going to allow a stock agency to license your work then the images will always be licensed at multiple different price points. And the stock agencies will not establish a floor price below which they will not license your image for some small use. Read this story for more things to think about.

After publishing my article on a Two-Tier Pricing System I’ve had a series of discussions with several photographers. There seems to be some general misunderstanding as to why I think such a system is in the best interest of all photographers regardless of whether they currently license their work as rights-managed (RM), traditional royalty-free (RF) or Microstock. Two-Tiers is not just another pricing model. The whole purpose is so all images can be made available to all customers at appropriate prices depending on how the customer intends to use the image.

How to create estimates that get the job and build your business.

For much of the past decade textbook publishers have tended to license rights to print a minimum number of copies of the books they published and then proceeded to greatly exceed the authorized press run without informing the content creators. Only recently have photographers become aware of this problem which we discussed in previous articles: Declining Textbook Market For Photographers and Publishers Owe For Past Uses. This articles provides a list of federal court actions for infringement of copyright that have been initiated against the major publishers in the last few years and names the photographer plaintiffs and the publisher defendants.

On his blog “Thoughts of a Bohemian" Paul Melcher says that Getty Images is now offering publishers “new low prices in exchange for being the sole provider.” Assuming that’s true, it could easily backfire on Getty, and may point to a need for photographers to revise their marketing strategies.

The following are some principles that apply all types of stock photo sales. The base numbers on the pricing schedules on this site are average rates for one-time, non-exclusive use of a single image by the smallest of companies, and assuming that the image has no unique factors that would make it more valuable. These numbers are equal to U.S. dollars and are reasonable rates for commercial use of the average professionally produced stock image. Other currencies should adjust accordingly. Photographer should be aware of the existence of similar microstock images that might fulfill the customer's requirements if exclusivity is not an issue for the customer. In such cases the photographer may find it necessary to negotiate a lower fee.

As prices for stock photo uses drop, the joke has been that pretty soon, publishers will start asking photographers to pay for publication of pictures. That idea may not be as ludicrous as it sounds. The time may not be too far off. In the last few weeks, photographers and stock agents have been receiving the following letter from India.

In most industries the manufacturer sets the price for his products based on his manufacturing costs. Of course if he sets his price too high consumers won't buy. Therefore, he certainly has to be sensitive to consumer demand.

Many traditional agencies have tried to introduce a midstock price offering in an attempt to defend against microstock’s steady cannibalization of traditional RF sales. However, all are based on the flawed theory that “quality” of an image can be defined, and that the price charged should be less when the image is of lesser quality.

In a recent blog article Lee Torrens said, “I cannot understand how you believe large corporations need to pay more for their photos because they can afford it. What other business services and products do they buy above the market value just because they can? You are talking about price discrimination based on who the customer is, not the quality of the product (in this case, the photo itself and the license.)” In this article I'll explain why I think price discrimination based on the value the customers receives from using the image is legitimate (Usage) and that price discrimination based on file size is inappropriate and has absolutely nothing to do with the "quality of the product".

How long will it take before traditional prices drop to microstock levels? If Alamy's sales are any indication microstock sellers may not be cannibalizing traditional sales in terms of number of units licensed but they certainly are cannibalizing revenue as traditional sellers fight to compete.

In 2006 I examined many of the factors that are impacting on stock photo market and leading to price declines. There were also a number of factors leading to declining sales volumes to traditional customers. These include the general demand for printed products, the tendency to use images multiple times but only pay once, trends in book publishing, postage costs, crowdsourcing of images and various types of guerrilla advertising. Since that time the situation has become worse.

The industry needs a new pricing model. The models we have include rights-managed, royalty-free, subscription, microstock and rights-ready, which is about to become extinct. What is needed is use-based pricing, or UBP.

“Should microstock photographers selling the same stock photos at different prices?” Recently Lee Torrens of Microstock Diaries asked several well known photographers, agents and industry analysts this question. This article gives you my answer. For the answers of the other industry leaders see Toren's story.

This story deals with a number of things that need to be considered when negotiating. It includes a discussion of how to deal with multiple of a single image in multiple publications, or many insertions in a single publication. There is a discussion of buyouts, discounting where there are multiple images licensed in a single sale, reuse and revision and minimum price. Finally there is a checklist of things to consider when negotiating.

Microstock sellers insist that simple pricing is a key to their success, but many of the current strategies aren’t really that simple.

Whenever you get a request for a buyout of an images the first thing to do is clarify what the clients means by “buyout”. More often than not, when the client uses gthe term “buyout” their definition is very different from the photographer's.

This article discusses pricing strategies and provides suggested prices for licensing images for Trade Show and Powerpoint uses.

This story provides a schedule that is useful when establishing a price for editorial usage in newspapers. Prices should be based on the size of usage on the page and the circulation of the publication. While these prices are reasonable, many struggling publications refuse to pay these rates.

This article provides strategies and prices for licensing images for calendar and greeting card uses.

This article provides prices for use of images on Educational and Retail Posters. For more information about educational uses see Stock Photo Prices - Textbooks, JHP2067

Pricing rights-managed web uses has become very difficult in the last few years due to the availability of microstock at extremely low prices. Currently, web uses represent a far bigger share of the market than print uses and the proportional web share seems likely to continue to grow as the print declines.

When magazines do a favorable story on a company or product, the company often requests reprints of the story to use in marketing and public relations. These reprints often have great value for the company because they represent an independent point of view.

This article provides information on prices non-publications advertising uses such as: billboards, point-of-purchase banners or murals, electronic displays, transit and airline posters, bus kiosks, transit and taxi cards.

One of the most difficult uses to price is public relations. The client who wants to buy a picture for PR use wants to allow magazines and newspapers unlimited use of that picture forever, completely free of charge. This article will provide you with some things to think about before licensing rights to a stock photo for PR use.

Newspaper advertising rates are based on how broadly the ad is used, not whether the publication is characterized as National, Regional or Local. National publications tend to be toward smaller circulations. Based on this theory, ads in National publications will tend to be priced higher than those in Regional or Trade publications. This story provides suggested prices.

This story provides a schedule that is useful when establishing a price for editorial usage. Prices should be based on the size of usage on the page and the circulation of the publication.

This story provides some information relative to establishing prices for fine art prints. These prices can vary greatly depending on the reputation of the artist and whether the images will be used by a private individual or commercially.

This article provides information on how to price stock photo usages for hang tags. Hang Tags are usually attached to items like clothing or sunglasses, where the product may not be sold inside packaging, but the manufacturer still wants to associate the product with some image.

This article provides information on how to price stock photo usages in television for both advertising and editorial usages.

Magazines and newspapers published by a corporation, institution or fraternal organization are know as house organs. When house organ distributed to member of an organization other than employees they are considered external, as the members are essentially their customers. The term "Internal House Organ" is used to refer to those publications that are distributed to employees only. It is important to clarify who the audience is in order to set the price. This story provides charts with prices based on the size of usage and the circulation.

This article provides information on how to price stock photo usages for packaging. Because packaging comes in many different shapes and sizes, it is often difficult to base the price on page size (1/4-page 1/2-page, etc.) We recommend that you find out as much as possible about the overall package and how your image will appear on it before establishing a price. It is often useful to ask to see a layout of how the image will be used.

This article provides information on how to price point of purchase pieces, including stand alone counter cards, case cards, register cards or table tents. These are meant to influence the customer’s purchasing decision at the point of sale.

This article provides information on how to price stock photo usages for corporate annual and quarterly reports.

This article provides information on how to price stock photo usages for free standing inserts or advertising supplements that are inserted in newspapers or magazines.

This article provides information on how to price stock photo usages for all types of brochures, catalogs, direct mail pieces, single sheet flyers and promo cards.

The business of licensing rights for textbook and educational use has been changing dramatically in the last year or so. Photographers and distributors need to make some major adjustments in the ways they calculate prices for uses compared to what they were doing a few years ago. This article outlines some new pricing strategies and explores some of the options. Those who continue to use the old strategies are leaving huge amounts of money on the table.

This article provides information on how to price stock photo usages for advertising in National, Regional or Local magazines.

In 2007 I proposed a pricing strategy that combines the rights managed theory of pricing based on usage and the simplicity of microstock and its ability to license rights for very small uses for fees of a few dollars. The system is described in a 12 page booklet. I call the strategy Modified Right Ready.

RF prices vary widely depending on the brand. The following are some of the prices charged for usage by various brands on Getty's site.

One of the biggest hurdles traditional RF and Microstock sellers face when confronted with the idea of switching from an RF pricing structure to a use-based one is how to explain such a switch to customers who’ve been told one price fits all and not to worry about usage.

Moodboardunlimited’s “You Set The Price” strategy is intriguing. The tremendous advantage is that the company will never lose a customer due to price, and the offer should attract new customers. However, there are at least three significant disadvantages.

In the very near future, RM photographers and traditional RF photographers will need to take a hard look at the whole issue of volume relative to price. Traditionally, photographers brought up in the old school (before 2000) focused on getting the maximum possible fee for every image licensed. Volume was secondary.