Corbis Contact Analysis

Posted on 7/14/2000 by Jim Pickerell | Printable Version | Comments (0)



July 14, 2000

The new Corbis contract has been released. It is not getting any shorter. It is a

massive document that will require a lot of careful examination by photographers and


There is definitely good news. Corbis is obviously trying hard to develop a

photographer-friendly Agreement and there are some major positive improvements when

this contract is compared with previous Corbis contracts and contracts in the industry

in general. But, there are still some issues that many photographers will want to

consider carefully before jumping to sign this agreement.

This story will outline what I believe are a number of the positive factors, and some

that are not so positive, in the Agreement. Each photographer should carefully study

each clause in the light of their own business. Listen to the advice of other

photographers and have the contract reviewed by a lawyer. My story should be viewed,

not as a complete examination of the contract, but only a discussion of certain

issues. There may be future stories on other aspects of the contract.


1 - There is no non-disclosure clause in the contract. It will be made

available publicly on a Corbis web site in about a week. When we have it we will post

the URL. Every photographer is free to discuss this contract with anyone they choose.

2 - The copyright ownership issue has been laid to rest in favor of the

photographer. For a full explanation of this see my Story

320 .

3 - Corbis has reversed recent industry trends by offering a royalty rate

structure that should slightly increase the percentage of overall gross sales

photographers receive in royalties, rather than decreasing it. Calculating how much

that really means for each individual photographer is complicated, but it is certainly

a major move in the right direction.

The basic rates are:

    50% for editorial uses

    45% for commercial uses

    20% for broad rights (royalty-free)

    20% for consumer digital products

    5% for merchandise (prints, posters, etc.)

There are three other factors that must be considered in order to determine how much

these percentages will mean in actual dollars in anyone's particular situation.

  • The photographer is given the option not to participate in any of the five

    basic categories of sales. Thus the photographer can choose not to allow his or her

    images to be licensed as broad rights, or for consumer digital products or merchandise

    and will receive either 45% or 50% on every sale.

    The photographer exercises this option on a submission by submission basis so he or

    she can decide that images from one submission may be licensed for consumer digital

    products and limit that type of licensing on the next submission. This provides the

    photographer with maximum flexibility in controlling the licensing of the work.

  • A distributor fee of 35% is deducted from the gross fee collected by Corbis

    wholly owned foreign offices before the photographer's royalty is calculated. This is

    good news because with most other agencies this "distributor fee," or foreign office

    fee, is normally 40% and sometimes 50%.

    Thus, on a gross sale of $100 in the UK a $35 distributor fee would be deducted and

    the photographer's royalty would be a percentage of the $65 depending on whether the

    usage was editorial or commercial. With most other agencies on a similar $100 sale

    the photographer's percentage would be calculated on $60 or $50 because the selling

    office is allowed to keep 40% of 50%.

  • "Corbis does not impose any marketing or catalog charges, or scanning and

    duplication charges on any of the Accepted Images."

Taking these three aspects into account existing Corbis photographers will definitely

earn more than they have in the past. In most cases the photographer with the newly

acquired agencies will probably earn more than has previously been the case.

4 - Corbis photographers will be paid monthly instead of quarterly, but there

is up to a 45 day delay after the end of the month before they will be paid.

5 - Corbis clearly states its intent to preserve the editorial integrity of

editorial images and agreements made by editorial photographers with their subjects.

The contract language says:

    "Corbis respects the special ethical considerations

    associated with editorial and news photography and will not intentionally and

    materially alter the fundamental nature of the subject matter in such (digital files

    that are cleaned up, color corrected, or enhanced in any way to preserve detail)

    Accepted Images or the caption information."

    In addition, "For Accepted Images you submit depicting celebrities or personalities

    and which resulted from an oral or written agreement between you and the

    celebrity/personality permitting the photographs to be taken, you agree to provide

    Corbis with any restrictions, including written or oral restrictions communicated by

    celebrities, publicists, or their agents, that would limit Corbis' ability to license

    the Accepted Images to its editorial customers. By example and not by limitation,

    such restrictions may include (1) the requirement that Corbis obtain placement

    approval from a celebrity or representative, or (2) restrictions based on time

    (including embargoes), territory, or type of publication to which Corbis may license."

This is a strong statement of Corbis' intent. The only small problem is that there is

no definition of how Corbis will be liable if they fail to honor the restrictions the

photographer has placed on such usages. In the celebrity situations in particular,

not only might there be lawsuits, but a photographer's ability to continue to work in

that industry could be severely damaged if a trust is violated.

There is no indication as to whether Corbis will allow photographers to restrict the

use of certain images for commercial purposes such as "no tobacco or liquor

advertising," etc.

6 - Corbis has agreed that upon termination of the contract, (and the survival

period) they will destroy all digital copies of the photographer's images. The

contract reads: "Upon termination of this Agreement, Corbis shall return any analog

originals or transparencies, destroy all analog dupes and remove and destroy all

digital files containing Accepted Images and any Corbis enhancements."

7 - Corbis is offering a Preferred Payment Option which guarantees that the

photographers will be paid even if Corbis incurrs a bad debt. Corbis will pay when a

license is invoiced, instead of upon receipt. If the image is used, but for some

reason Corbis can't collect (a bad debt) the photographer gets to keep his share. If

the sale is cancelled for any reason the amount the photographer received for the

cancelled sales would be deducted from future royalty payments. However, cancelled

sales would be unlikely since Corbis delays payment until 45 days after the end of the


If the photographer chooses the Preferred Payment Option a 2% fee is charged on all

sales, not just Corbis office sales, to cover Corbis' costs of making the money

available to the photographer before they collect.

The difference between a "bad debt" and a "cancelled sale" should be noted. In the

event that Corbis pays a royalty to the photogragher and the sale is subsequently

cancelled, Corbis will need to recover the invalid royalty payment from the

photographer. In most cases the $ amounts involved on cancelled sales and the

resulting adjustment to the photographers are relatively small. However, it should be

noted that one photographer on this program had $30,000 in sales cancelled and this

money was deducted from future sales. In the event of a large invoice cancellation --

as a ratio of the photographer's normal monthly earnings -- Corbis will spread the

impact out over a reasonable time period to avoid any economic hardship to the


8 - When a photographer uses the Corbis official model release, Corbis agrees

to defend the photographer against model-release lawsuits.

General Strategy And Exclusivity

It should be noted that their Photographer Representation Agreement is designed to

standardize many of the details of the photographer-agency agreement, but it is not

the total package. Not only is the photographer allowed to choose certain options

within the standard agreement, but each division will have separate additional issues

to be negotiated.

One of the areas that will be open for negotiation is the degree of exclusivity. The

agreement indicates that Corbis will work with photographers in three different ways:

Photographer Exclusivity, Image Exclusivity and Image Non-Exclusive. This actually

reflects the different arrangements they currently have with various photographers.

They say that each of their divisions has unique business reasons for wanting to

handle the exclusivity issue in their own way. Thus, the detail of exclusivity is

left to individual negotiation and will be covered in each photographer's

Representation and Use Rider.

Corbis makes the point that generally they will treat similar photographers

similarly...that is to say that each Corbis division will negotiate similar terms with

its photographers regarding exclusivity. The options relating to exclusivity will be

determined by each division based upon its business needs. (For example, Corbis'

ability to command a higher price on commercial photos depends upon exclusivity.)

When they use "divisions" it does not mean brands or acquired businesses. The divisions

will be celebrity portraiture, news, commercial photography, etc. The new acquisitions

of TSM and Sharpshooters will be combined in a commercial division along with the

WestLight photographers. It appears that the contracts for the commercial division

will be image-exclusive despite the fact that many of the photographers with these

agencies currently have photographer exclusive contracts.

Officials at Corbis indicate that their philosophy is one of total integration, not

maintaining separate brand identities. On the other hand they say they will continue

to promote individual collections that are meaningful to the clients. It is unclear

whether this means there will be future TSM and Sharpshooter catalogs because their

brands have some meaning to the clients, or whether there will be a single "commercial"

catalog that integrates all these photographers.

While all the images will become part of one large database, Corbis says that all the

distinctives of the various brands and divisions will not disappear. It will be

important in coming weeks to try to get a sense of what distinctives will remain and

which are likely to diasppear. For the commercial photographers, Patrick Donehue, the

new VP of Commercial Photography will be key in setting the strategy.

I am having trouble seeing where "Photographer Exclusivity" relationships fit into this

model. There may be a reason for images that go into print catalogs to be exclusive

(image-exclusive), but I

have trouble seeing why every image a photographer produces should be exclusive, and

moreover, why certain photographers should be restricted from trying to market,

through other sources, images that Corbis does not want to scan or promote.

It may be reasonable to accept a photographer exclusive agreement if you are receiving

in return some tangible benefit that all other photographers represented by the agency

are not receiving.

One of the reasons for being an exclusive photographer is that the agency will agree

to market and promote ALL of your production. That does not appear to be part of

Corbis' strategy. They intend be very selective about what they put into their

system. Most

photographers will find that they have lots of images which they believe are

marketable, but which Corbis will be unwilling to promote.

While Image Non-Exclusive is the ideal, for most photographers it would seem that an

Image Exclusive agreement for the Accepted Images would not be logical until Corbis

demonstrates to the photographer that they are accepting the vast majority of the

photographer's production.

If Corbis works out some system to provide "High Visibility Featuring" on their site

of certain images that might be a reason for agreeing to Image Exclusive, but not

necessarily Photographer Exclusive. Another option would be a guarantee of a certain

minimum number of images in future print catalogs. There must be a quid pro quo in

exchange for agreeing to Photographer Exclusivity.

A photographer is earning $200,000 a year from his or her agency can afford to be

exclusive. One making $10,000 can't. But, this $10,000 a year person may produce

certain unique types of imagery that Corbis needs, and no matter how hard both sides

work this photographer may never to a level where he or she could be self supporting

from the income generated from Corbis. The specialized producer should not be

penalized, or denied the opportunity to market his or her work in other ways simply

because some people in the "division" are producing work that generates a high volume

of sales.


Photographers who are considering the Image Exclusive arrangements should examine the

definition of "Similars" closely. I think it needs to be narrowed. At present it

reads as follows:

    "Similar" means a photographic image, in analog or digital form, that may reasonably

    cause an industry professional viewing the image to believe that it is the same or

    substantially the same as an Accepted Image by virtue of it: (i) being taken at the

    same time and location, and, if containing people, with the same people regardless of

    changes of wardrobe; or (ii) relying on the same conceptual style, lighting or other

    photographic composite or illustration technique.

Let me try to describe with a couple examples why I believe this is a problem.

    If you have a sequence of a running cheetah, two different frames shot 15 seconds

    apart are not going to be Similar and should not be considered as such.

    Suppose we have a picture of a couple walking along a beach. We also have a tight

    shot of the same couple in the same clothing, shot 30 minutes later having a drink in

    a cabana. In addition we have a silhouette of the couple shot from farther away

    showing the ocean and the sunset in the background. This pictures was taken 10

    minutes after the previous one and there were no costume changes. None of these three

    diffrerent situations should be considered Similar. They are all different and unique


If some advertising client wants to lock out all uses of this couple in any situation

then they should be doing a custom shoot rather than buying stock. If everything shot

in one day becomes a similar very few photographers will be able to justify shooting

model released people or expensive travel and wildlife shoots.

Most photographers can not afford to give up a lot of small sales where exclusivity is

not important for the hope of making an occasional block buster sale.

The "or (ii) relying on the same conceptual style, lighting

or other photographic composite or illustration technique," makes things particularly

impossible. Because it is preceded by "or" rather than "and," if a photographer

develops a particular style he can only sell one image in that style. If a client

buys an exclusive on that style all of the rest of past and future production could be

locked out of the market.

Maybe the Corbis sales people won't interpret a given situation to this extreme, but

the problem with the language is that the photographer has no way of knowing how it

will be interpreted. Given the definition the photographer can not safely market

anything through other sources that has any relation whatsoever to an Accepted Image.

Such an option might be acceptable if Corbis were going to accept everything the

photographer submits and market it all agressively in a non-exclusive manner until the

time when a client wants broader future exclusivity and is willing to pay a

substantial price for that privilege.

The problem is that Corbis is not willing to agressively market ALL the work of the

photographers they represent. They only want to market a very small segment of the

photographer's production, and leave it up to the photographer to do something -- or

nothing -- with the rest. If the "exclusive" agent is unwilling to agressively market

ALL the photographer's production then the photographer's earning potential is

severely limited.

The best option is to narrow the definition of similars to an "identical" image. This

way the photographer can continue to market through "other sources" images that were

taken at the same time and place, but are not the exact image. In those rare cases

when the client wants to place broader limitations on the use of "similar" images,

Corbis needs to go back to the photographer and work out the details on the particular

set of images.

Exclusive sales that lock out similars are rare. Granted, that when they occur they

respresent high dollars, but even then I believe it is a very small percentage of

total gross sales for the agency. While no one wants to give up any sale, I think

losing an occasional high dollar sale is better than establishing policies that make

it impossible for many photographers to earn a living, or forcing many photographers

to reject working with the agency.

Having to check with photographers on such sales certainly isn't the most convenient

way for Corbis to operate, but it is the only practical way so long as they are

unwilling to manage the entire production of the photographers they represent.

It is important for everyone to keep in mind that photographers have been willing to

agree to such a "similars" definition, because their agency was agressively marketing

ALL their work. When the agency changes the business model and starts "cherry

picking" and refusing to handle much of the photographer's production the way

"similars" are handled must also change.

Issues With Positive and Negative Aspects

1 - The contract is for a 3-year terms, not 5-years or 20-years as were the

previous Corbis contracts. The contracts reads: "This Agreement commences on the

Effective Date and lasts for an initial term of three (3) years. Upon expiration of

the initial term, this Agreement will renew on a year-to-year basis; unless terminated

by either party upon at least ninety (90) days written notice prior to the anniversary

date of the Effective Date."

There is a little kicker with termination. Clause 10.2.1 says: "Upon expiration or

termination of this Agreement, Corbis may continue to exercise the license rights

granted herein (on a non-exclusive basis) for the following period after termination

or expiration: three (3) years for all Accepted Images, five (5) years for

commercially scanned Accepted Images, and in the case of Accepted Images incorporated

into Broad Rights products, for the life of such product,"

It seems to me that a continuing 5-year right to license images after a contract is

terminated is an unreasonably long time. That means this contract is in effect for at

least 8 years, not three. I understand that Corbis needs time to recover their costs

if they go to great expense to scan and keyword images and then only have the right to

license them for three years. Corbis estimates that they spend more than $50 per

image to prepare an images for the database. After observing their operations, I am

convinced that they have such costs.

I asked if the 5-year survival for "commercially scanned" images is figured for all

images from the termination date of the contract, or from the date when the image went

on-line? For example, if an image went on-line at the beginning of a three year

contract, would that image's survival time be only two years after the termination of

the contract. More to the point, assume that a photographer has been with Corbis for

six or more years and then terminates the arrangement. The images that went up during

the first year have already been in the system more than five years, and thus it would

seem logical that they could be removed immediately.

The answer from the official spokesperson was, "Survival periods start and are

effective following termination, not the 'online date'."

2 - "Upon completion of this process (digitizing accepted images) and at our

expense, we (Corbis) will promptly return to you the analog originals of your Accepted


The good news is that all original transparencies will be returned to you once they

are digitized. The originals of the "Accepted Images" will not be retained until the

end of the contract period. This greatly reduces the chance that any of your images

will be lost of damaged.

The bad news is that within a few years all the analog files of the existing agencies

will be broken up and the images that have been so laboriously collected, and

carefully edited -- in some cases over decades -- will be returned to the individual

photographers. Corbis will digitize a small fraction of these images after going

through their editing process. (Getty appears to have more or less the same

strategy.) The photographers will then have to go through a process of editing the

returns and resubmitting them to another agency for filing, or more likely, the images

will remain in individual photographer files where no one can ever find them.

This may be a good thing because undoubtedly a large percentage of the images that

will not be digitized are outdated and will never be in demand. However, based on

comments from experienced photographers who have received returns, there are a lot of

saleable images in the material coming back. They may not be saleable at a level that

can justify spending $50 or more in preparation costs for every one of them.

Photographers need to give careful consideration as to what they will do with the

images that will be returned. One productive WestLight photographer has already had

more than 40 boxes of his file images returned, weighing over a thousand pounds.

3 - One positive thing is that Corbis has stated in their contract that the

wholly owned foreign offices will charge 35%. They can't change that without changing

the contract. No other agency that I know of has been willing to make such a

statement in their contract.

What is left unsaid is the commission split with independent foreign sub-agents. A

Corbis spokesperson has told me that the 35% is a median of the rates that foreign

sub-agents currently deduct. That means there are variations. Some may take 30%,

others 40% or something else. We know that some companies not affiliated with Corbis

get to keep as much as 50% of the gross fee collected before remitting the balance to

the parent agency.

There are indications that Corbis may end up using sub-agents in many countries rather

set up wholly owned offices. They currently use a sub-agent in Germany which is

probably the largest single market outside of the U.S. Thus, the sub-agent

percentage is important. On the other hand Corbis is giving their photographers more

information on this issue than most other agencies at the present time.

4 - The "Limitation of Liability" may present some major problems for

photographers with a large quantity of images in existing files. As I understand it,

if any photographer currently with the acquired agencies signs this agreement the

maximum claim that photographer would eventually be able to recover in the event that

a large number of his or her images have been lost is $10,000. Certain major

producers should give this clause careful consideration before signing.

I understand that Corbis needs to put some limitations on their risk, but this is

unreasonable considering what the photographers have at risk. It is particularly bad

for the single image. If Corbis happens to lose or damage a great one-of-a-kind image

that could easily generate thousands of dollars for the photographer over its lifetime

all that photographer is going to recover is $100? That's not reasonable or fair.

Accidents happen. A photographer may spend thousands of dollars to produce a set of

images and get basically one frame that really works.

Given that the industry standard has been $1,500 for years, I think you the single

image number to $1,500. There needs to be a top end to maximize risk for Corbis, but

$10,000 is too low.

5 - The clause that deals with "Promoting and Testing Accepted Images" allows

Corbis to use any of the Accepted Images - even if the photographer has chosen not to

participate in the Consumer Use Rights section of the business -- to test certain

markets and to Promote the Corbis brand. They can do this without compensating the

photographer in any way for these usages. Corbis could set up a web site offering

free use of images for e-greetings. Even if they receive significant revenue from

sponsors or advertisers on such a site, none of therevenue would be shared with the


Signing On

The new improved terms and conditions do not automatically go into effect for

photographers who currently have Corbis contracts.

Each contract will need to be separately negotiated and given the potential

administrative overload that may take some time. Some Corbis photographers have

received letter saying that they are "eligible for upgrading" and if they agree to the

new agreement it will go into effect on January 1, 2001. Photographers who haven't

been contacted and who are interested in considering the upgrade option should

probably call their editor and get their name on the list.

Copyright © 2000 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, 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:  


Be the first to comment below.

Post Comment

Please log in or create an account to post comments.

Stay Connected

Sign up to receive email notification when new stories are posted.

Follow Us

Free Stuff

Stock Photo Pricing: The Future
In the last two years I have written a lot about stock photo pricing and its downward slide. If you have time over the holidays you may want to review some of these stories as you plan your strategy ...
Read More
Future Of Stock Photography
If you’re a photographer that counts on the licensing of stock images to provide a portion of your annual income the following are a few stories you should read. In the past decade stock photography ...
Read More
Blockchain Stories
The opening session at this year’s CEPIC Congress in Berlin on May 30, 2018 is entitled “Can Blockchain be applied to the Photo Industry?” For those who would like to know more about the existing blo...
Read More
2017 Stories Worth Reviewing
The following are links to some 2017 and early 2018 stories that might be worth reviewing as we move into the new year.
Read More
Stories Related To Stock Photo Pricing
The following are links to stories that deal with stock photo pricing trends. Probably the biggest problem the industry has faced in recent years has been the steady decline in prices for the use of ...
Read More
Stock Photo Prices: The Future
This story is FREE. Feel free to pass it along to anyone interested in licensing their work as stock photography. On October 23rd at the DMLA 2017 Conference in New York there will be a panel discuss...
Read More
Important Stock Photo Industry Issues
Here are links to recent stories that deal with three major issues for the stock photo industry – Revenue Growth Potential, Setting Bottom Line On Pricing and Future Production Sources.
Read More
Recent Stories – Summer 2016
If you’ve been shooting all summer and haven’t had time to keep up with your reading here are links to a few stories you might want to check out as we move into the fall. To begin, be sure to complet...
Read More
Corbis Acquisition by VCG/Getty Images
This story provides links to several stories that relate to the Visual China Group (VCG) acquisition of Corbis and the role Getty Images has been assigned in the transfer of Corbis assets to the Gett...
Read More
Finding The Right Image
Many think search will be solved with better Metadata. While metadata is important, there are limits to how far it can take the customer toward finding the right piece of content. This story provides...
Read More

More from Free Stuff