Justifying 20% RF Royalties

Posted on 5/8/2008 by Jim Pickerell | Printable Version | Comments (6)

Photographers regularly ask why the royalty paid on RF sales is only 20% of the net received by their agent, when the agent pays 40% to 65% on RM sales that are made in the same manner. Royalty percentages have little to do with reality, and nothing to do with the cost of production.

Get the Full Article (1 Credit)

Have an Account?

Access to this site is an exclusive benefit for you. Enter your username and password in the form above. If you don't remember your password you can reset it at any time.

Keep me logged in

Forgot your password?

New to Selling Stock?

Selling Stock is an on-line newsletter that reports on developing trends in the stock photo industry. It is updated at least twice a month. On-line subscribers receive e-mail notification whenever new stories are posted. Archives containing stories going back to late 1995 are fully available to subscribers.

Buy Credits

Copyright © 2008 Jim Pickerell. The above article may not be copied, reproduced, excerpted or distributed in any manner without written permission from the author. All requests should be submitted to Selling Stock at 10319 Westlake Drive, Suite 162, Bethesda, MD 20817, phone 301-461-7627, e-mail: wvz@fpcubgbf.pbz

Jim Pickerell is founder of www.selling-stock.com, an online newsletter that publishes daily. He is also available for personal telephone consultations on pricing and other matters related to stock photography. He occasionally acts as an expert witness on matters related to stock photography. For his current curriculum vitae go to: http://www.jimpickerell.com/Curriculum-Vitae.aspx.

Comments

Chris Moran Posted May 8, 2008
Nice writing style. Looking forward to reading more from you.

Chris Moran

Bill Brooks Posted May 9, 2008
Your last two paragraphs could apply to the low royalties paid for RM as well. There are some libraries that pay higher royalties for both RM and RF and photographers should work with them.

Betsy Reid Posted May 9, 2008
"Images are now shown, ordered and delivered through the Internet with costs exactly the same as RM images."

Jim,
I am so glad that you agree with what the Stock Artists Alliance has been saying for years. A major objection to RF for many photographers has always been the royalty rate.

SAA has raised this question many times with stock distributor management and the answers have always been unsatisfactory.

A frequent explanation, which we cited in our SAA white paper on Licensing Models, has been that the volume offsets the lower rate.

Another response is that "we're asking the wrong question" and that it's all about the return on investment.

The only real explanation seems to be that once established, enough artists were willing or compelled to accept it. I can't imagine any artists submitting to RF defending the rate; they just live with it.

Betsy Reid
SAA Executive Director

Bill Bachmann Posted May 9, 2008
I do not sell with RF and won't. I make too much money from RM images to literally "give my work away" with RF. But I do wish the RF photographers would stand up and get paid what they should be paid.

Stand up and demand a higher percentage and start a movement. The agencies can not make any sales without you so YOU HOLD THE POWER!!

Bill Bachmann Orlando, FL

Tim Mcguire Posted May 9, 2008
So, after reading this article it seems there is no "Justifying 20% RF Royalties".

The only answer to this problem is for photographers to stop submitting their work as RF or to stop submitting their work to distributors who require 80% of the licensing fees (20% for the photographer).

There are plenty of of new distribution outlets offering 50+% for RF licensing. Alamy, Digitalrailroad, Photoshelter, are a few. I'm sure there are more. Please list them here if you know of others. The more RF licensed through these other, more fair minded outlets, the more pressure will be put on those who cling to the poorly concieved revenue splits of the past. There is absolutely no reason for them to change if they don't have to?

Only photographers can fix this. Make them change.

Tim McGuire
Seattle, WA USA

Chris Ferrone Posted May 11, 2008
Jim makes a good point: the economic rationale for the low commission rate established in rf's infancy no longer applies in today's market conditions. Today, a different rationale applies, however, which does justify the lower rate, at least for many photographers; the revenue the stock photo companies can generate for their contributors, even at 20%.

Plenty of photographers are clamoring to put their rf material with Getty for a low commission because they know Getty can deliver enough volume to make it worthwhile. Yes, photographers do have the power and the right to decline to work with any company. Some, however, find it financially expedient to accept the deal as is.

When enough photographers reject the deal that the big rf producers can no longer sustain viable image databases, then they'll raise their commissions. But I wouldn't hold my breath. For every photographer that walks away from a deal with one of the big rf companies, countless others will gladly take their place.

Whether to accept a 20% commission is a business decision that each photographer must make for himself or herself, which is as it should be because stock photography is a business activity, first and foremost. Exhorting all photographers to blow off the 20% rf deal is a complete waste of time. Whatâ€™s worse, itâ€™s entirely unfair because it implies the one doing the exhorting knows whatâ€™s best for everyone else.

Post Comment