Royalty Free/rights Managed: Both Okay? Price Point?

I'll be watching this one. Good question, Jani.

Has to be one or the other really, they are very different licensing models. Rights Managed (RM) is based on licensing specific reproduction rights for a certain use and duration (the terms can be wide ranging) and the images licensing history is known. Royalty free (RF) means the image can used many times over by clients for one fee (which is usually based on the image size), so its impossible to know who has used it where and how many times (most microstock falls into this category).

Stock agencies will usually only let you submit an image as RM or RF, never both. Assuming there is no exclusivity in contracts you can submit an image as RF or RM to more than one agency, what you can't do is submit it to one agency as RM and another as RF. This article might be of interest: https://asmp.org/articles/rights-managed-stock-vs-royalty-free-stock.html#.VJI1JxYen_Y

Okay, that makes sense.

Now, I have a new question which may be harder to answer. Price point. What numbers are the sweet spot? Not too much and not too little. I've heard that book covers are anywhere between 500 and a 1000 dollars for printed books. Not sure if that is hardback or paperback.

I got a cover award for a magazine not too long ago and awarded 250 dollars. Not sure if that is a normal price or they got a deal because it was from a show.

The Disney/ABC contract for use of an image is 100 dollars.

The people here at Pixels had prices that were way low and prices that were rediculously high. One was in the 13,000 dollar range.

Even with the research I've done, I'm still finding it a challenge to find the 'right' prices that doesn't turn away any customers.

I've been researching the same thing and think you should only choose one option as it's too risky from a legal standpoint to not obey the contractual agreement. Thanks for opening this thread, I really want this to be my business rather than putting paintings above fireplaces. And it's so hard to know what the price should be but one successful artist on this site told me privately to start out lower and raise the price as you get more popular. I think that sounds fair.

Thank you for your comments so far.

More questions. How come I can't see my work on pixels unless I'm logged in and when I am logged in I can't see my licensing options? It looks exactly like my FAA and Artistwebsites page. I can see other people's, but not mine. I tried typing in my name the way I have it in my keywords and that didn't work.

As far as prices go, when you click the button to okay competitive pricing with Getty images the price range is automatically set at very low numbers. From 100-150. So far, in my research, most people have been ignoring those prices and are setting their own and at higher rates.

Jani,

Glad you brought this topic up. I need to know more.

Dave

And, is anybody actually selling anything as stock?

I still can't figure out this royalty-free business...

Royalty free is just a particular kind of contract between the supplier of an image and the user. In general, it means you pay once for a wide range of rights and can then use the picture forever in as many different projects as you like. RM is a more restricted contract, generally one that allows usage for a specified project for a fixed time and it may sometimes give exclusive usage rights in a particular geographical area. If you want to use the image for something other than the agreed time/usage then you have to buy another license.

That's what the industry understands by them, anyway. When FAA got involved in stock it produced a rather confused model for RF/RM and I'm not sure if its current arrangements fit exactly with the usual meanings of the terms or not.

Paul,

Might I boil it down?

Freely use forever, no royalties

v

Managed rights with limitations, possible royalties

Dave

I am on dreamstime and we have RF and EL (extended license) which has basically the same function as RM. both are on each image, if we choose to do it that way. i have only sold one EL license in 8 years on one of my earlier stock sites. right now i have mine set to RF and RM and using the Getty default prices.

Artwork including identifiable people and certain forms of property can't be licenced for promotional / advertising purposes. Making these images RF removes any control over their usage, so is asking for trouble.

There's also an etiquette that images shouldn't listed with one licence type, and with a different licence type available elsewhere. Buyers aren't amused if they discover the image they licenced, is available under different terms and prices, at other outlets.

"As far as pieces go, when you click the button to okay competitive pricing with Getty images the price range is automatically set at very low numbers. From 100-150. So far, in my research, most people have been ignoring those prices and are setting their own and at higher rates."

Jani, Pricing is massively complex in RM, due to the multitude of licencing options, time scales available. There's no serious outlet that I'm aware of, that lets contributors set their own prices. The closest I've come, is an agency I upload to, where buyers contact the contributor directly with their budget, and a price can be negotiated between the two.

However that requires a great deal of experience. I'm not sure that I'd be comfortable trying to set an entire range of prices, without more information about the specific details of the usage.

Yes, people have sold them here.

You should choose just one. Personally I would never go with unmanaged.

Prices differ but there are sites that can give you ideas. I think the links are on my laptop so if nobody has given you then by the time I'm on it, I will try and find them

This might fill in a few holes,

http://photographersindex.com/stockprice.htm

Thank you Andy!

Selling at low RF prices only makes sense if you have the volume. i.e. an image with the potential to sell over and over again. These are not the type of images one would expect on a fine art site.

On the other hand RM licensing typically requires more back and forth negotiation between buyer and seller or seller's agent. Its not a transaction that can be automated. IMO.

Andy, that calculator is great, especially for those of us that are totally new to licensing. Gives me confidence to now dip my toe....feet....into these waters! Thanks for the link! :)

I think the photographer's index prices are way above the current market rates. Image prices have been dropping. Alamy, for example, is selling images to UK newspapers for around $20, whereas that calculator says the "average" price would be more than ten times that. Of course, if it is a unique news photo of a current top news story a high price would be justified.

Denise, the "extended licenses" on DT aren't doing the same job as RM licenses. What the ELs do is remove one or other of the restrictions that DT's standard license have.

Are most people doing this with photos vs original art? Should one charge a lot more for original art? Thanks.

I'd say that photos or paintings are just digital images when it comes to stock - the value is in the way the image is used, not in its origins. If you're going to stick an image on the front of, say, 500 restaurant menus, what difference does it make whether it is a photo or some other kind of artwork? Would you pay more and push up the price of the design just because it was painted not photographed?

I can not speak for others, but if I never made any money from this....

I would leave my portfolio in my estate for my nephews and niece. Perhaps
one day it would be worth something. If not I have enjoyed my life making
art.

As someone who makes originals, but only in the digital file format, for me
to license my work "randomly" I would need managed rights. I only am learning
that now. I did not sign up for licensing, because the topic was too vague.

I will rethink it, but it is not what my goals are.

Dave

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for all the input so far.

I agree that it shouldn't make a difference if the art is a photograph or a painting.

Andy, the calculator link will be very helpful.

Your other comment is food for thought:
"Jani, Pricing is massively complex in RM, due to the multitude of licencing options, time scales available. There's no serious outlet that I'm aware of, that lets contributors set their own prices. The closest I've come, is an agency I upload to, where buyers contact the contributor directly with their budget, and a price can be negotiated between the two.
However that requires a great deal of experience. I'm not sure that I'd be comfortable trying to set an entire range of prices, without more information about the specific details of the usage."

Still, it can't hurt to have prices set in a reasonable range. Not everyone approaching us will know about our Pixels page. At the very least, it can be a reference point for us to refer to when approached with licensing an image.

Another thing about RM is that the price is often negotiated directly between the buyer and the agency, not set by a one-size-fits-all calculator.

Another thing about RM is that the price is often negotiated directly between the buyer and the agency, not set by a one-size-fits-all calculator.

Paul, we were typing at the same time.

I commented with this:
"Still, it can't hurt to have prices set in a reasonable range. Not everyone approaching us will know about our Pixels page. At the very least, it can be a reference point for us to refer to when approached with licensing an image."

"I think the photographer's index prices are way above the current market rates. Image prices have been dropping. Alamy, for example, is selling images to UK newspapers for around $20, whereas that calculator says the "average" price would be more than ten times that. "

@Paul. I replied to Justin that it is a common complaint that all Alamy customers seem to get deep discounts compared to the price calculator. I haven't looked in depth at the price calculator link that I posted, because there's nowhere that I upload stock to, which lets me set my prices. However it provides a useful starting point for those artists which are new to stock licencing.
I would alson think that the originality of artwork stock would command slightly higher prices than conventional photography, given the scale of images available in each medium.

@Jani, I hope the link will prove useful, but Paul's warning is sound. This should be treated as a broad based starting point rather than a specific reference level. There is continuous downward pressure on prices and only you can decide how you value your work.
My other comment wasn't intended to dissuade you, only to help you recognise that licencing is a far more organised industry than fine arts selling. You are selling to professional buyers who are far more price conscious and have access to a far wider range of resources. This heaps additional pressure on the seller.
I believe artwork licencing has scope, but I'm not convinced that transplanting the FAA model into stock, is the best way to go.

That said, I wish you, and all others taking this step, the very best of luck.
In my limited capacity, I'll try and be of help in any way that I can.

"Another question:
Is the two year usage standard? It seems like a long time. "

Two years seem like quite a short time, compared to the licencing terms I've been aware of. However I guess it mostly depends on the usage.

Two years for a newspaper article is long, but for web or book usage is very short.

All very good points, Andy, thank you.

As Paul says "Another thing about RM is that the price is often negotiated directly between the buyer and the agency, not set by a one-size-fits-all calculator. " Exactly - So where is the 30% commission to FAA justified? My book cover agent takes 50% but they work out all the details. All I have to do is upload and wait for the check.

I thought the licensing here was part of the membership package. I don't remember reading anything about them taking 30%, but I guess it make sense. They are offering a platform of visibility and it is less than what an art rep would take.