139 PHOTODISC & ROYALTY FREE
May 6, 1998
This story is about PhotoDisc, but it also deals with royalty free selling in general and the
developing trend to purchase images on-line.
Royalty free imagery is the fastest growing segment of the stock photo market. I estimate the
entire market for stock photography was about $1 billion in 1997 and roughly 10% of that went to
purchase royalty free products.
Gross sales for PhotoDisc, which is unquestionably the largest single supplier of RF images was
around $41 million. Of that, "approximately $7.5 million was generated by single image sales on
the company's award-winning web site (www.photodisc.com)," according to a February 1998 Getty
Images press release.
About 19% of gross sales were spent on royalties paid to photographers PLUS"direct costs of
manufactured products, amortization of costs to acquire or produce photographic images (wholly
owned product) and other costs such as credit card fees and freight." Since I have no idea how
much the "direct costs" were, and whether this included all the production costs for the wholly
owned material, it is unclear what percentage of gross sales actually went to the photographers.
One thing I can be sure of is that it was probably quite a bit less than 19% of gross sales.
Individual image sales jumped from $500,000 in June of 1997 to $1.3 million in December which
reflects a dramatic growth in the use of on-line technology to find images.
The $7.5 million in web sales represents a VERY impressive 18% of PhotoDisc's gross sales in
1997. This is very surprising when compared with the sales of other large web sellers.
Our research with agencies that sell images on-line through Picture Network International (PNI)
indicates that the combined total gross sales of the 36 stock agencies that have images on their
site was probably in the range of $6 to $7 million dollars in 1997. The PNI agencies had 10
times more images on-line in 1997 than PhotoDisc, and still PhotoDisc generated more revenue.
Further, we have the Corbis experiment. In their database, Corbis has in excess of 500,000
images supplied by individual photographers. The photographers are paid 45% of gross fees
collected for any uses of their images. Based on information I have received from a number of
these photographers, Corbis probably earned less than $2,000,000 from the licensing of these
500,000 images in 1997.
Certainly, a big part of the reason for these variations lies in the fact that a large percentage
of PhotoDisc's images are commercially oriented while the majority of the images on PNI and
Corbis are much more editorial in nature. PhotoDisc's prices may be slightly lower, but not
significantly so. Even allowing for these advantages the spread in sales is fantastic.
I have identified photographers who have produced over 50,000 of the approximately 60,000 images
PhotoDisc now has on-line. (The list of names and number of images each has is listed at the
bottom of the story we have posted on-line.) I talked to a number of them.
Virtually everyone was very pleased with the working arrangement they have with PhotoDisc. They
liked the detailed sales reports and the regular monthly payments. They commented about the
excellent research that PhotoDisc does to determine what is in demand and the detailed lists they
provide outlining subjects they need.
Prior to the development of on-line sales PhotoDisc had a very good idea of the categories of
subject matter that were in greatest demand based on their disc sales statistics. Now, they know
which specific images clients want to use and can focus their future production toward developing
even more specific content.
Photographers also liked the fact that when they supply new images they are edited, up on-line
and making sales within a couple of months. This is very refreshing for those photographers who
have experience in trying to get images into traditional catalogs.
When it comes time to make a new disc PhotoDisc first selects from the new material on-line, then
they put out a general request to all their photographers for additional material on that
subject, and finally they commission assignment shoots to fill the holes.
Photographers are supplying images to PhotoDisc in two different ways. Some produce images on
speculation, and submit them for consideration in more or less the same way that images have
traditionally been supplied to stock agencies.
However, it appears that increasingly the emphasis at PhotoDisc is to hire photographers to shoot
specific projects on a day rate basis. I estimate that about one-third of the images currently
on the PhotoDisc site were produced in this manner.
When I checked this number with PhotoDisc, Public Affairs director Laurie McEachron said, "Your
estimate is very high. The actual number is confidential, but we do want to note your estimate
is very inaccurate."
Sixteen photographers have produced about 42% of the images on the PhotoDisc site. Not all the
images provided by these photographers were done on assignment, but I believe a significant
portion were produced on assignment. In addition, photographers other than these sixteen have
also done some assignments.
From my perspective, this production shooting is the forerunner of another big change in the
stock industry. Now, there are an abundance of photographers willing to produce stock images for
a fee, plus a very small royalty. Most are assignment shooters who think in terms of getting all
their income in up-front fees whenever they take pictures. Photographers who produce on
speculation need to consider the implications of this new competition.
Several photographers commented that their participation with PhotoDisc started out as a way to
test varying market strategies, so they wouldn't have all their eggs in one basket. Doug Menuez,
who is the current top producer with 3591 images on-line, compared it to the "asset allocation"
strategy brokers recommend to investors in the stock market. Don't put all your assets in one
type of investment. Spread them around. Doug views his images as assets and he is trying to
find various ways to "invest" them to test varying marketing strategies without becoming totally
dependent on any one source of revenue.
The few complaints we heard about PhotoDisc from its photographers were minor, and fewer in
number, than those we regularly hear when talking to photographers represented by traditional
Most photographers speak highly of Gretchen Schultz and her assistant who supervise all the
PhotoDisc productions. Shoots are generally several day affairs with some going ten days or
In most cases Gretchen handles all the pre-production work from collecting props to hiring
models. In some cases photographers have had some input in choosing locations and models, but
most seem to have very little involvement in the production planning. For many this is a real
plus and makes their job easier.
Photographers indicate that there is an emphasis on "counting frames, not quality," and that
there is a lot of pressure on the shoots to produce volume. After looking at PhotoDisc's site, I
can see some evidence of this. They not only exploit every conceivable option from a given
location or situation, but they put very subtle variations on-line. A location shoot that might
produce three to five images for a major print catalog, will generate 30 to 40 variations for
PhotoDisc's on-line catalog.
According to Laurie McEachron of PhotoDisc, "Your calculation (on the of images produced from a
day's shoot) is flawed, and the estimate is inaccurate. Numbers of this type we consider
confidential competitive information. It does not serve PhotoDisc or our photographer partners
well to arm the competition with information about our production rates, selection rates and
other sensitive information." Readers can review the PhotoDisc site and make their own
A few photographers indicated that if anything, the shoots were easier than ones they have with
other commercial clients because Gretchen is such an efficient planner and organizer.
Given the emphasis on volume, flat, simple lighting is often the rule. By looking at the site
you would think PhotoDisc really loves those overcast, flat days in Washington and Oregon. But,
I suspect the real reason for such lighting is that it enables the photographers to work faster
than if they were trying to do some of the subtle things with light that are so popular in most
of today's print catalogs.
They usually have lots of models on the set so they can get a variety of faces and ethnic
variations doing basically the same thing. In my review of quite a few of the on-line images, I
would say they are not as picky as TSI, FPG or The Stock Market in their model selection and
styling. PhotoDisc is willing to accept less perfect people, or more real people -- call it what
While this philosophy of lighting, model selection and styling differs dramatically from what the
traditional agencies have been preaching to stock photographers, it is important to keep clearly
in mind that this approach is definitely working. PhotoDisc is experiencing greater sales growth
than any traditional agency I am aware of.
PhotoDisc has also worked heavily with major photographers who have strong assignment businesses,
but no previous experience in producing and marketing stock. Typically, if photographers had
previous stock agency experience, it was with a small agency that produced very little income for
the photographer. For this photographer stock is a sideline, not a major focus or a major source
of income. For such photographers PhotoDisc has been a real boom given the return they are
providing on a relatively small number of images.
PhotoDisc has recently built an in-house studio and hired Duncan Smith. It is our understanding
that Duncan will be expected to produce about 250 new images for the database each month. Laurie
McEachron said, "The studio was created to provide supplemental images to the PhotoDisc
collection in areas where material may be difficult to find. Of course, we always give our
photographer partners first crack at our shot lists, but there are times when they cannot supply
the desired material."
Compensation - Return per image
A good rule of thumb for the average return per image for disc images produced on speculation
appears to be about $100 per image per year. Photographers who have been with PhotoDisc for four
or five years indicate that sales seem to continue for several years.
However, the $100 number can be deceptive when it comes to those photographers who do production
shoots. As we mentioned earlier a significant proportion of the images are being produced in
All the contracts of photographers submitting on speculation seem to give them 20% of gross
sales, on new work produced. However, on some of the discs produced before 1995 photographers
got a sliding percentage that dropped as sales of the particular product increased. Thus, in
some cases photographers are receiving as little as 5% on sales of some of the earlier discs even
though they are getting 20% from the new products.
If the photographer happened to be represented by an agency in one of these earlier deals, and
split the royalty with the agency, the photographer might only be getting 2.5% of gross sales.
In most cases where photographers have high numbers of images on-line, a large percentage, if not
all, were produced on assignment.
The average return for many of these people may be $30 to $50 per image and that is for the
single year in which they produced the image. Of course, these photographers had absolutely no
production costs to offset.
There are several factors that could account for this big difference. I am unsure as to what
degree any of these factors are playing a role at this time.
- For many of the photographers with high numbers of images on-line, a lot of the images
have been added recently. It takes some time for sales from new images to "ramp up" and,
therefore, as time passes revenues from the current images in the file may increase.
- In the production shoots, photographers get all or nearly all of their income from the
one-time fee. Many get a very small (1% or 2%) royalty on sales which provides, some income, but
not much over the life of the images.
- It appears that even though overall revenues are rising very fast at PhotoDisc, the total
number of images in the system is rising even faster. Thus, the average return per image on file
could be dropping.
- PhotoDisc tends to select a lot more frames for up-loading from production shoots than when
the photographer submits images on spec. Photographers who have been around for a while say the
editing for spec shooting is getting much tighter. One photographer put it this way, "They used
to take my "B" and "B+" images and I could send my "A+" to other agencies. Now, I have to give
PhotoDisc my "A+" work if I expect to get anything accepted. And they are still taking a lot
- They upload a lot of variations from production shoots which makes sense when we consider
that it is often difficult to tell exactly what the art director will be looking for. However,
from a return-per-image point of view it may result in lower returns because of the redundancy of
- It seems clear from the people we talked to that those getting higher returns per image
generally have fewer images in the system overall and fewer images on-line.
- As more users turn to buying individual images on-line, rather than buying discs,
photographers may see their return-per-image drop because they are only being paid for images
actually being used by the client. When clients buy discs they often use only one or two images
from each disc, but everyone who had images on that disc receives a share of the fee for that
- Photographers with high numbers of images may be updating earlier subject matter and thus
reducing the demand for their older images. This is particularly true if the photographer has a
style, or approach to the subject matter that is distinctive.
Payment for On-Line Uses
For many photographers on-line sales in 1997 seemed to represent 10% or less of their gross
income from PhotoDisc. On the other hand 18% of PhotoDisc's total gross revenues came from
Photographers doing production shoots should watch this ratio of disc to on-line sales carefully.
It could provide useful information when negotiating future production shoots.
One explanation for why photographers seem to be earning less from on-line sales may lie in the
fact that a very high percentage of on-line sales may be for images either wholly owned by
PhotoDisc, or where the photographer receives a minimal (less than 4%) royalty.
It is clear that PhotoDisc has been putting a very high proportion of "production shoot" images
on-line, and that a much higher percentage of assignment images are accepted for on-line display
than when the photographer submits images he or she shot on speculation. In addition, most of
the images produced on assignment are of subject matter that PhotoDisc's sales data has shown to
be in greatest demand.
Also, the way the database is organized, the most recently added images come up first when any
search is made. Since a lot of the wholly owned images were shot recently, and are first in line
in the database, they may get selected more frequently than older disc images.
Given these facts, something like the following may be happening.
Total gross sales of $41,000,000
| Photographers Receive Royalties
85% of sales
40% of sales
| PhotoDisc Wholly Owned Images
15% of Sales
60% of Sales
| Basis for Photog Payments
| Photogs Receive Percentage of Above Numbers
(These percentages are only hypothetical. I have no way of determining actual percentages. But
these numbers show it is theoretically possible for photographers royalties from on-line sales to
be 10% of their total income while PhotoDisc's on-line sales are 18% of their gross receipts.)
In over 85% of the disc sales, photographers get some royalties because a relatively small
portion of the images on the discs are "wholly owned." This will change with time, but it was
probably true in 1997 given the rapid rise of on-line sales at a time when PhotoDisc was cranking
up production shooting and putting a lot of these images on-line. But, when it comes to on-line sales, a
much higher proportion comes from images wholly owned by
It is also easy to see the tremendous benefits for PhotoDisc in increasing wholly owned
production shooting relative to the number of images they accept from photographer who have
produced work on speculation.
Laurie McEachron points out that, "No photographer has ever been forced to do assignment shoots
for us." But the photographers who do these shoots might want to consider the possibility of
taking a lesser up front payment and trying to negotiate a larger royalty based on usage.
Another aspect of the photographer payment for on-line use is somewhat confusing. PhotoDisc has
three prices for on-line uses: $19.95, $69.95 and $129.95 depending on the file size. But, the
photographer's sales reports show a variety of other gross prices on which certain royalties are
calculated. These include: $10, $25, $35, $75, $135, etc. This raises the question as to
whether there are three simple rates, or a variety of fees. When asked this question Laurie
McEachron said that there were three rates, but would not explain the inconsistencies. She said,
"Discussing the details of photographer payments and royalties would be a violation of our
Based on my discussions with photographers I think several don't understand where these numbers
are coming from, and I would think they have a right, even if I don't, to know how these gross
fees on their sales reports are arrived at. I would encourage them to ask.
Return From Productions and Negotiating the Deal
The payment for the assignment shoots is usually about $2500 to $3000 a day plus all expenses.
The fee varies with the shoot and depending on what royalty percentage the photographer wants.
In some cases photographers take less up-front and receive a greater royalty.
However, I have also heard that in some cases photographers are offered lower fees for current
assignments than they were paid for assignments a year or so ago. It is unclear whether this is
because the work they are being asked to do on the recent assignment is perceived by PhotoDisc to
be of lesser value, or because now there are simply more photographers willing to work for
PhotoDisc, and thus they can get away with paying less.
It appears that there is often some royalty in addition the basic fee on production shoots, but
often it is only one or two percent.
It would seem to always be to the photographer's advantage to try to get some royalty, even if
only 1%, so he or she would have some idea which images are selling and how well. This
information could be useful in planning other stock productions and in negotiating for future
For example if a photographer were earning $1,000 a month on a 2% royalty, he could jump that to
$5,000 a month if he were getting a 10% royalty. This additional royalty return over a period of
years might justify the photographer accepting a much lower initial assignment fee to do the
One way to determine what to ask for in such negotiations is to try to estimate the number of
on-line images that might be produced from a given shoot. Let's assume 200 from a 5 day shoot.
Photographers who are getting 20% royalty seem to be averaging between $50 and a $100 per image
If the images where the photographer gets a 20% royalty only produce an average of $50 per image,
per year and PhotoDisc is willing to pay $3,000 per day ($15,000) it would take a year-and-a-half
of sales to generate that much income. It might be better to take all the money up front. On
the other hand, if the images are hot subject matter 200 images might produce $20,000 in
royalties in one year. Keep in mind that sales will probably go on for several years.
Another way might be to base part of the up-front fee on the number of images finally selected to
PhotoDisc may only offer jobs under certain "take-it-or-leave-it" conditions, but it does appear
that there have been a variety of types of deals negotiated in the past. At any rate these
factors are worth considering as you negotiate.
Most photographers doing assignments are hoping that they can develop a long term relationship
that will work into a routine of a fixed number of projects per year to supplement there other
assignment work. However, with the number of photographers knocking at PhotoDisc's door, and
willing to work for less, there may be few long range guarantees.
Photographers have also found new clients as a result of having their images on the discs or
Occasionally, a PhotoDisc client needs a larger file of a particular image or wants to work from
film. In these cases PhotoDisc refers the client to the photographer and the photographer
charges his normal rate.
In other cases the image on the disc is not what the client wants, but he would like to find
something similar to it. PhotoDisc refers the client to the photographer and in several
instances photographers have been able to strike lucrative deals for other images in their file.
These sales are particularly appealing to photographers who earn most of their income from
assignments and have little experience in selling stock.
Several PhotoDisc photographers believe that "going on-line has hurt the quality" given the push
to get a volume of images into the on-line environment.
This is particularly true of the photographers who are doing assignments. This is not to say
that these photographers are not good photographers, but when they are pushed by the production
team to produce a high volume of variations in a given day, they can't take as much time with
each setup as they might if the focus were more on quality.
By way of comparison I would point out that it is not unusual for a Tony Stone photographer to
spend one to several days, including pre-production planning and gathering props, to bring
together just the right elements to produce one image for the catalog. This effort may be
considered excessive by some, but it produces a unique image that can be licensed for very high
If you look at the selected images in PhotoDisc's disc catalogs the quality has certainly been
getting better and better.
It is interesting to consider how placement on-line will affect sales. The database is organized
so that newer images always come up first. This means older images slowly get pushed to the
bottom of the pile.
If they were keyworded extensively so clients might tightly define their needs some of those
older images might pop to the top, but this does not seem to be the case.
When a client does a search they get 9 thumbnails on a page. If they want to wait longer for
thumbnails to come up they can choose to look at 21, 60 and 99 thumbnails at a time. It takes 3
to 3.5 minutes to load 99 thumbnails on an ISDN line. Once loaded it is quick to flip through
and review them. It the client wants to jump to the next page or randomly pick a page within a
group of ten, that is a fairly easy process. But, if he wants to randomly jump to page 48 it is
quite a bit more time consuming. The question in one's mind always is, "If I don't go through
the pages sequentially what am I missing," but on the other hand few researchers have the time to
go through all the pages. The fact that they put so many slight variations side by side also
makes finding a variety of totally different situations more time consuming.
What probably happens is that users go through pages sequentially until they find something that
works and then they quit. There are at least three very interesting questions: (1) what
percentage of the users jump to pages randomly rather than going through sequentially, (2) how
much patience does the average user have, and how many pages will they go through, before they
quit and go to another search, or (3) how many use the default search which is 9 thumbnails at a
time, rather than choosing another option. My guess is that most people go sequentially and that
they don't have much patience. (PhotoDisc certainly has access to data that would answer these
questions, but it is understandable that they don't want to share it.)
Keywording at PhotoDisc produces some interesting results. For example, if you look for a
picture of "tigers" the first pictures you see are pictures of dromedary camels. This is because
one of their suppliers which has 120 images is a company called "Lions, Tigers & Bears" and the
"tigers" search starts by calling up all of their images.
If you try to narrow the search by asking for "tigers" and "asia" you find that there are none.
If you enter the singular word "tiger" you do get to see some tigers in action, but the first
picture you see is a tiger shark.
You can get rid of the sharks by using the boolean "not" feature and saying "not fish" or "not
If you search on "wildlife" the first frames you get are some beautiful shots of ticks. It turns
out that in their wildlife category they have recently added 208 images from the U.S. National
Tick Collection. Since the name of the photographer or organization is a keyword all the ticks
which are keyworded "wildlife" come up first.
Anomalies like this are likely to develop with any system of keyword search. At Stock
Connection, for example, we have a photographer whose last name is Child so all of his pictures
come up whenever people look for a "child". Unfortunately, his area of specialization is
corporate and business not family life and children.
One way to solve these problems is to have extensive keywords so you can narrow the search in
several different ways. PhotoDisc has about 25 to 30 keywords per image, which in my estimation
is no where near as extensive as it should be with a database of 60,000 images.
With so few keywords categories will get larger. There is no way for the user to more
specifically define their needs so that some of those older images at the bottom of the pile will
be brought forward. The keywords that identify specific features of the image, or concepts that
make them unique are missing.
There are 9359 images of business, 2331 couples, 1273 family, 1124 sports and 854 elderly.
However, there are only 17 seniors so pray that everyone understands that they are suppose to use
"elderly" instead of "seniors" when searching in this database. If you are looking for "elderly"
who are "active" and search on those two words you get no hits. If you really look through
elderly pictures you are going find some people who look pretty healthy and active, but that
"active" keyword is not attached to the image.
On the other hand we can't forget that PhotoDisc had on-line sales growth of 160% in six months
(June 1997 to December 1997) so maybe customers are happy to put up with this inconvenience in
order to buy their images on-line. Maybe it doesn't make any difference.
In their race to get more and more images in the database they may be lowering the chances that
users will find some of their older, and possibly better quality images. To counter this effect
PhotoDisc has put up a second site: www.photodisc.com/2. This site contains a much smaller file
of what the PhotoDisc editors believe are their best images. These images also appear in the
main PhotoDisc site.
Sources from inside Tony Stone Images tell us that 50% of the on-line buyers are people who have
not been traditional buyers of stock images. Laurie McEachron says, "This figure is incorrect.
What we can tell you is that the market for imagery is growing, and that many new customers, such
as those doing web and multimedia design, may not have been stock photo buyers previously. We
believe that the availability of image-manipulation tools, improvements in printing technologies
and the increase in accessibility via the web has brought many new customers to the stock photo
The 50% (or slightly higher) figure dovetails with the information we have received in the past
from the agencies that have images on PNI.
Given the revenue generated from these on-line sales, this new market is significant, although
still only a small fraction of the total market for stock photography.
The RF industry has argued since its inception that it was reaching out to a new industry, and
certainly that seems to in part be the case. On the other hand, photographers and stock agencies
have been concerned about that other 50% who had traditionally paid higher prices and are now
getting images at lower rates.
One of the things we have said for a long time is that RF is here to stay. Photographers need to
accept it as a reality in the market and learn to deal with it.
In addition, given the continued rise in sales, it would seem that PhotoDisc lost very few
customers when they raised the price from $50 to $70 for unlimited use of an image acquired on
In fact, there were a few types of uses like packaging and book covers where higher fees were
charged in 1997, but those restrictions have been eliminated in 1998.
David Falconer had one problem which photographers should carefully consider when supplying
images to PhotoDisc or any RF company. Overall, Falconer is very happy with his relationship
with PhotoDisc and the income he receives from selling in the RF environment.
But, like many photographers Falconer tends to use friends and acquaintances a models. At one
point he shot some pictures at the 50th wedding anniversary of some friends and got a nice
picture of the couple cheek to cheek. Fortunately, he got a model release.
The image went on a PhotoDisc produced disc and Whitaker Wellness Institute in New Jersey
purchased a copy. Whitaker used the image on a direct mail brochure entitled "Healing Miracles"
that it uses to market vitamins and other products.
In the brochure the wife was given a fictitious name and a quote that said, "I was saved from a
$300,000 heart transplant by using...."Friends of the wedding couple received the brochure in the
mail, and when they recognized the couple they started questioning them about their heart
transplant and other "healing miracles" they had experienced. The couple was disparaged and
humiliated and were very upset with Falconer for allowing their picture to be used in such a way.
They wanted distribution of the brochure stopped.
Also used in the brochure was another of Falconer's photos of a young couple on a Hawaii beach.
The title over the young couple kissing at sunset read, "Dr. Whitaker's Uncensored Secrets to
Sizzling Sex at any age..."
Falconer contacted PhotoDisc, but they were unwilling to do anything, in spite of the language in
their license agreement that says "pornographic, defamatory, libelous or otherwise unlawful use
of PhotoDisc images is prohibited." It would seem that this use is "defamatory" and possibly
To try to get some satisfaction, Falconer contacted Whitaker Wellness Institute himself. The
response of their lawyers was, "all professional models know the product is not as presented and
you (David), as a professional photographer who sells photographs, should know there is no truth
Falconer, "felt sorry for the couple in the photograph," but there was little he could do.
Fortunately, he did have a release that protected him.
This clearly illustrates one of the problems that can arise when the sales process is fully
automatic and specific uses are not discussed with a representative of the seller.
Falconer now puts an extra label over all "people" stock photographs that says, "Not to be used
or published for mis-leading advertising." Of course, no royalty free company is going to be
able to accept an image with such conditions for use in their products.
We had a similar experience at Stock Connection a few months ago. A bank in Southern California
wanted to use one of our close-ups of a elderly couple for their brochure. They found the image
on the Stock Workbook disc. However, they had to come to us to license rights.
The copy they intended to use under this picture was, "My husband was laid off from the aerospace
industry and we were about to lose our home. XXX bank gave us the loan we needed."
The couple had signed a model release, but they were also friends of the photographer, and
certainly hadn't anticipated their photo being used in connection with something that implied
this type of false personal testimony and endorsement. The photographer was contacted and
together we decided to refuse to make the sale. When a selling agent is talking directly to the
client refusing to do business remains an option.
Photographers supplying images for royalty free products should recognize that the way the
images are used may totally mis-represent who the people are. The photographer should be sure
that the models they use understand this, and are comfortable with such an arrangement.
This may be another reason why PhotoDisc is moving more to production shoots where they control
the models and the releases.
The more I investigate, the less worried I am that RF will take over the market. RF has its
place and will certainly gain a larger share, but there traditional stock offers a much
greater selection and visual variety. The ability to control usage is also be important for
many buyers. Consider the fashion industry with "high fashion" and "ready-to-wear." Both
co-exist and some designers produce both products.
Based on conversations with other photographers, per image returns from Digital Stock are
about the same as PhotoDisc. Digital Stock has lower gross sales because they have fewer
discs in circulation and are just beginning on-line sales of individual images.
| PhotoLink (West Stock)
| Doug Menuez
| CMCD (Clement Mok)
| Jack Hollingsworth
| Kieth Brofsky
| Barbara Penoyar
| Steve Mason
| John A. Rizzo
| Bruce Heinemann
| Suza Scalora
| Jeremy Woodhouse
| Russell Illig
| C Squared Studios
| Arthur S. Aubry
| Sami Sarkis
| Index Stock
| Hisham F. Ibrahim
| Mark Downey
| Sexto Sol
| Skip Nall
| Thomas Brummett
| Karl Weatherly/Sean Thompson
| Siede Preis
| David Buffington
| Adalberto Rios Szalay
| Steve Cole
| Adam Crowley
| Emma Lee/Life File
| Nick Koudis
| Alan Pappe
| Frank Johnston
| Andrew Ward/Life File
| Martial Colomb
| Kim Steele
| Don Farrall
| Pat Powers/Cherryl Schafer
| Philippe Colombi
| Scott T. Baxter
| Kent Knudson
| Lawrence M. Sawyer
| Jonnie Miles
| Albert J. Copley
| Alex L. Fradkin
| Nancy R. Cohen
| Jack Star/PhotoLink
| Santokh Kochar
| Edmond Van Horrick
| Jim Wehtje
| John Wang
| Ian Cartwright
| Robert Glusic
| James P. Blair
| Jess Alford
| Don Tremain
| Studio Dog
| Charlie Borland/PhotoLink
| Spike Mafford
| James Gritz
| Izzy Schwartz
| S. Meltzer/PhotoLink
| Rim Light/PhotoLink (Brian Drake)
| Lawrence Lawry
| David Falconer/PhotoLink
| Kaz Chiba
| Joe Ginsberg
| Michael Matisse
| Skan/9, Inc.
| InterNetwork Media, Inc.
| Colin Paterson
| U.S. National Tick Collection
| Hans Wiesenhofer/PhotoLink
| Greg Kuchik
| Jim Grant
| S. Pearce/PhotoLink
| Janis Christie
| Michael Matisse
| M. Freeman/PhotoLink
| Ingo Jerierski
| Tancredi J. Bavosi
| Bruno Herdt
| Lions, Tigers & Bears
| Andy Sotiriou
| Jayme Thornton
| Jules Frazier
| D. Normark/PhotoLink
| Carol Lee/PhotoLink
| Daisuke Morita
| Jim Linna
| Steve Solum/PhotoLink
| Emanuele Taroni
| Tracy Montana/PhotoLink
| Glenn Mitsui
| Tony Ise
| Gary Irving
| Richard Hume
| J. Luke/PhotoLink
| Tim Hall
| Ricardo Elkind
| Malcolm Fife
| S. Alden/PhotoLink
| C. McIntyre/PhotoLink
| L. Hobbs/PhotoLink
| Michael Aw
| Anthony Saint James
| Frank Wing
| Nigel Shuttleworth/LifeFile
| Robin Ginsberg
| Craig Brewer
| Su Davies/LifeFile
| Marybeth Thielhelm
| David Kampfner/LifeFile
| R. Kaestner/PhotoLink