January 1999 Selling Stock

Posted on 1/10/1999 by Jim Pickerell | Printable Version | Comments (0)




Volume 9, Number 3

©1998 Jim Pickerell - SELLING STOCK is written and

published by Jim

Pickerell six times a year. The annual subscription rate is $80.00.

subscriptions may be

obtained by writing Jim Pickerell, 110 Frederick Avenue, Suite A, Rockville,


20850, phone 301-251-0720, fax 301-309-0941, e-mail: jim@chd.com. All rights

are reserved and no information contained herein may be reporduced in any


whatsoever without written permission of the editor. Jim Pickerell is also

co-owner of Stock Connection, a stock agency. In addition, he is co-author


Cheryl Pickerell of Negotiating Stock Photo Prices , a guide to pricing

stock photo usages.

Thought For The Month

Agencies say: The cost of marketing imagery has become prohibitively expensive in the

past three or four years. It is clear that the split has to improve for the agency if

it wants to actually survive the battle of the lightbox.

Photographers say: The cost of producing excellent photography has increased

dramatically over the past few years. If the split changes toward the agency,

photographers will no longer be able to produce new material.

Story 186


January 9, 1999

At Photo Expo 1998 in New York on October 31st Jonathan Klein, CEO of Getty Images gave

a keynote speech entitled "Content in the 21st Century." The full text of this speech

is in Story 180 no the Selling Stock Online site.

During the question period Klein was asked:

    Question - What is the justification for reducing the photographer percentages? Will

    percentages continue to go down?

    Klein - I feel quite frankly that the existing Tony Stone photographer's contracts -

    most of the photographers have now signed -- is the right percentage. That's why we

    proposed it. That's why we stuck by it. We have no intention of further reducing it.

    That percentage is 40% for an on-line in-territory sale and 30% for an out-of-territory

    sale. Now, one can debate what the right percentage is.

    And I have often made the point, and I'll make it again now that the percentage the

    photographer gets is the highest of any industry I know, with one slight exception and

    that is Hollywood. If you take the percentage cost of a movie the star may get,

    sometimes, a higher percentage, but not even then. So I feel that the relationship

    between the talent and the business of marketing and distributing that talent is

    extremely favorable to the talent [in the stock photo business]. If you are asking me

    from the Getty Images perspective, do we intend to change, the answer is no. The top

    selling writers in the world do not even get 15% of the royalties.

Photographer Laurance B. Aiuppy provides a reaction to the comparison of photographers

to movie stars as a justification for why photographers are overpaid.

It will seem paradoxical for a thinking stock photographer to be grateful to Jonathan

Klein, CEO of Getty Images (for some, stock photography's Anti-Christ) for anything he

said in New York during Photo Expo. However, as a full-time stock photographer with

major agency representation (not Getty), I thank him for doing two things.

First, he has finally broken the heretofore biggest taboo in stock photography. That

is, challenging the 50/50 split on gross photo licensing sales. This split, whose

origination is lost in the mists of stock photography's distant past, has been

sacrosanct, a kind of third rail between photographers and agencies that all were

afraid to touch for fear of frying.

This split only made sense when stock photography was the underfed stepchild of the

assignment industry. Back then assignment photographers didn't much care about the

50/50 split, since it was "found" money after being paid up front for their time,

talent, and most importantly the production costs, of assigned images. The agencies

certainly liked such a generous split for simply distributing pictures that cost them

nothing to produce. Who wouldn't. But that was then, this is now.

Contemporary stock photography is now a stand-alone specialty, with its own unique

demands and forms. No agency today can survive without these expensive, difficult to

produce specialized images. Images made by highly skilled stock shooters at the top of

their games producing unique images for which they assume all the up front costs and


I think we deserve more than a 50% return, not less. However, like everyone else who

understands the economics and traditions of the industry I was willing to leave the

50/50 split alone. Until now. I am delighted that someone with the position of CEO at a

major agency had the temerity to touch the rail. Now that the taboo has been broken, we

can all begin a dialogue about the real cost of producing today's highly specialized,

expensive to make stock photos.

Certainly the agency proportion should not be 50%, I agree with Klein about that. If

things were truly fair and reflected actual economic realities, it should probably be

around 25-35% for the agency, and about 65-75% to the photographer. After all, what the

agencies essentially do is just distribute the images. Stock photographers assume the

bulk of the industry costs and risks- the actual up front production costs as well as

all (or at least most) of the marketing and distribution costs of catalogs, CD's and

now internet marketing. This in the form of "participation fees" that I have it from at

least one PACA agency head cover all an agency's costs in this area.

I know of at least one agency with the integrity and honesty to work within the above

range, and turn a profit. Why can't the others. I am sure there are plenty of agencies

out there privately furious with Klein for opening up this debate. But so be it. It is

now open.

The second thing I must thank Klein for is his unwittingly, in the broadest sense of

the word, giving photographers a very helpful business model and industry parallel with

which to understand the economics of stock photography. Ammunition to use when dealing

with agencies over "the split."

When Klein, in answering a question following his keynote address at Photo Expo,

compared photographers with actors ("talent") in the movie industry, he got the overall

industry analogy right, just not the particulars. The parallel to actors in the motion

picture industry are models in our industry. Like directors in the "motion" picture

industry, we (the directors of our "still" picture productions) do use models-actors,

but that is as far as that aspect of the analogy goes.

The proper parallel to stock photographers in the motion picture industry is the entire

production side of the motion picture industry. Independent stock photographers are the

same as independent motion picture studios. That is, for the stock photography industry

we are the developers, financiers, producers, script writers, casting directors, film

directors, cinematographers, editors and the various production units (production

department, art department, set construction, set decoration, prop department, vehicles

and transportation departments, special effects, camera operations, special equipment,

grip department, lighting and electric operations, wardrobe department, makeup and

hairdressing dept., set operations, site scouting and rental department, stage

department, post production, film processing and testing, film editing and effects,

etc., . . . as well as the marketing department). You get the picture (if Klein does

not). We, independent still stock photographer/studios, are all these things rolled

into one entity.

The agencies are simply the distributors of our still photography productions. Should

they get 50% of the gross for what they do? You tell me.

Oh yes, one more thing. Since the agencies conveniently forget it, it behooves us to

constantly remind ourselves that out of whatever is left over from our 50% of the

gross, after subtracting all of our up front production costs (see above), we must pay

our studio/business overhead (space rent, upkeep and depreciation; business liability,

equipment (including vehicle) and disability insurance; personnel and labor costs;

office supplies, materials and equipment; camera equipment purchases; etc., etc.). And

after that is paid, we must somehow feed, clothe and shelter our families, insure our

family's health and well being, pay for higher education, and fund our retirement

accounts. I don't think we can do it, long term, on less than 50% of the gross. Not and

live like free human beings.

Story 187


December 21, 1998

Tony Stone Images announced a better than anticipated performance

from its full commerce website, www.tonystone.com. Launched only eight weeks ago, the

site consists of 50,000 high quality and creative images available for search, purchase

and download with 1,000 new images being added every week.

It has attracted over 1,000 registered users each week and has generated a higher

revenue per individual sale than is currently being achieved in the analog environment.

The website has achieved a 25 per cent weekly growth rate in sales since its

mid-October launch. In addition more than 25 per cent of all online purchases have

come from new customers.

Getty's full web commerce sales reached more than 10% of total sales and digital sales

for the third quarter of 1998 were $16.8 million, representing 34% of total sales.

(These sales were principally from PhotoDisc and AllSport.)

Getty also reported that they acquired Sporting Pix in Melbourne, Australia. This

acquisition is part of a strategy to own and operate offices in key markets in order to

build client relationships and increase sales. Getty now has a network of 14 wholly

owned outlets in all the major markets for visual content, as well as agents in 54


Story 187


December 21, 1998

Deborah Free has resigned as president of Natural Selection Stock. David L. Brown,

Chairman of Natural Selection Stock has assumed the additional title of CEO.

Ellen Boughn has become VP of Artville, the RF company that was purchased by The Image

Bank earlier this fall. Ms Boughn left Corbis last summer and was briefly at

Definitive Stock in Seattle before moving to Madison, WI and taking this new position

at Artville.

Story 181


December 4, 1998

PhotoDisc has been sued by Victoria Newell-Simon, and her husband

Keith Simon over the repeated use of a photo of the couple and their newborn daughter

McKenzie. The photo shows them sitting on the ground in a park and was taken for their

personal use by a professional photographer. The photo later made its way into the

PhotoDisc collection.

This suit was first filed in June 1997. According to Forbes magazine the suit could

result in a settlement of more than $1 million for the plaintiffs. The image in

question is number 2391 on Volume 2 of PhotoDisc's CD-ROM series, and on November 30,


PhotoDisc published a nationwide apology to the Simon family in USA TODAY. The ad was

5 1/4" x 6 1/4" and included the offending photo and the following text:

    Have you seen this image?

    The image shown below has been used in a variety of commercial projects ranging from

    brochures to packaging materials over the past several years. We regret that this image

    was supplied to PhotoDisc without a valid model release and distributed without the

    knowledge or permission of the Simon family. We deeply regret and apologize for any

    disconfort or embarrassment this may have caused the Simon family.

    To help make amends, PhotoDisc will donate $5,000 to the charity of the Simon family's

    choice."It is our understanding that the total settlement with the Simon family is much

    higher, but the actual out-of-court agreement will not be made public.

In an unrelated action, attorney David Gallo, who represents Karla Lyon, filed in San

Diego Superior Court on October 2nd seeking certification of a class action against

Corel and Fry's Electronics. The complaint asks for damages for nearly 1,000 people

whose photos are allegedly being sold without their permission. The photo of Lyon shows

her diving into a pool and was probably taken during a competitive diving event,

according to her attorney.

Lyon does not claim her privacy was invaded. But she, and other potential class

members, were harmed by the unauthorized sale of their likeness and by not being paid

royalties, the complaint alleges. The California Civil Code forbids the use of a

person's name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness, in any manner, on or in

products, merchandise or goods or for purposes of advertising or selling or soliciting

purchases of products, merchandise, goods or servicves without such person's prior


Also named in the suit against PhotoDisc were West Stock which was doing business with

PhotoDisc under the trade name PhotoLink, Zephyr Pictures which supplied the image to

West Stock and photographer Melanie Carr. West Stock has supplied more than 8,000

images in the PhotoDisc collection and was the principle image supplier during the

early years of this royalty free company.

According to sources at Zephyr, Ms. Carr originally hired Mrs. Newell-Simon for a photo

shoot of a pregnant woman. Mrs. Newell-Simon signed a release for this shoot. However,

in lieu of payment for the pregnancy shoot, Mrs. Newell-Simon asked Ms. Carr to take

some family photos after the baby arrived. Ms. Carr agreed and when the family pictures

were produced no release was signed and there was no discussion about stock usage.

Later, the photo was delivered, in error, to West Stock and still later to PhotoDisc.

Ms. Carr is an experienced and prolific stock photographer.

West Stock would not comment on the matter while there is on-going litigation. This

image is on the second disc produced by PhotoDisc, and has been in royalty free

circulation since the early 1990's. Over 10,000 copies of the disc have been


In 1997 the Simons began to hear that their family photo was appearing in a lot of

strange places. The Christian Coalition featured them as the "June family" in a

calendar. The Coalition's politics aren't those of the Simons. Costco used Keith's

receding hairline to promote Rogaine, a baldness remedy. The San Diego Union-Tribure

put their image atop a personals ads for single parents. Two trade magazines had them

illustrating a story on chronically ill children. One of the things that seems to have

percipitated this suit was the fact that many of the early uses were offensive to the


One of the risks associated with supplying images through royalty free products is the

likelihood that users tend to resort to royalty free as a way to obtain the images they

need when they have difficulty finding models who will agree to promote their products

and services.

The Simon's photo also appeared in a Macy's sales catalog that went into at least 3

million homes. An ad for a Quicken software product called Family Lawyer had a 9.3

million distribution. As Forbes pointed out, "The more impressions you make of an

offending photo the bigger the damage claims."

From a legal point of view, one of the problems with Royalty Free is that it is very

difficult to turn off future uses. PhotoDisc sells a large portion of their product

directly to the customer and thus has pretty good records as to who has purchased

specific products. Not many, if any, of their discs are sold at retail. For Corel, this

is entirely another matter. A large percentage of their discs are sold at retail where

they have no tracking of the purchaser. Thus, Corel will probably probably find it very

difficult to turn off future uses.

The Simon image is not on PhotoDisc's web site and PhotoDisc has withdrawn two discs -

V2 and V32 - from the market. Sources tell us that PhotoDisc has contacted their

distributors and is trying to identify all buyers. (Much of the sale of CD-ROM products

overseas is handled through distributors.)

We also understand from customers that in a few instances in the past PhotoDisc has

offered "replacement images" when a problem has arisen with a particular image.

PhotoDisc has had some trademark as well as model release problems.

In an effort to try to deal with similar problems in the future, PhotoDisc has sent out

a letter to most of their photographers requesting copies of their releases and

indicating that if they do not receive them in a short period of time they will repress

the discs on which they appear and release new versions.

While model release problems occasionally arise with Rights Protected agencies as well,

they are usually more localized and errors are more easily corrected. When an agency or

photographer is notified of a problem, they can immediately remove the image from

future use and distribution.

In the Forbes interview, Heather Redman, general counsel for Getty Images, said, "As

the industry gets bigger and better known and the players in it get bigger and better

known and the general litigation environment gets more and more difficult, the

potential for awards gets larger."

Hassle Free?

These cases point out that the "hassle free" nature of royalty free photography may be

somewhat of an illusion. It may be "hassle free" in the beginning to not have to

discuss the specifics of a planned usage, or to confirm that the release actually

exists and is adequate for that usage, but it may present a lot of hassles for the

customers down the road.

In the PhotoDisc case, all purchasers of the product were sent a letter to determine if

they had used the image. At that point they had to research their usage of the product

and describe any usages made. If they used the image they were then named in the law

suit because they used it for commercial purposes without a valid release.

There are many potential uses that might be offensive to different models. Some such

uses may seem benign to some people, and totally unacceptable to others. But it is the

model's reaction that is critical.

Lessons To Be Learned

There are several lessons for photographers to consider when supplying images to a

royalty free company, or to any stock agency that will be conducing on-line

transactions without negotiations

  • Are all images that are model released clearly and accurately identified as having

    such releases?

  • Make sure you have solid identification with each release so they can not be mixed

    up. A polaroid of the model, attached to the release is the best solution. Some

    organizations are reqiring a copy of a photo ID to also be attached to the release so

    they can be sure the person signing is who they say they are.

  • Any non-released images being offered for sale or licensing should have a clear

    statement, delivered at the time of sale, that indicates that it is the obligation of

    the purchaser to obtain proper releases before making any commercial use of the images.

    The agency will have some releases available, but the user must check with the agency

    to be sure that the release covers the specific use that is planned.

  • Is there any way to restrict the "e-commerce" customer from using the image in

    connection with a "sensitive issue" without requiring negotiation with a human?

    Determining what is "sensitive" is a very abstract concept and can not be defined as

    having a universal meaning for all people.

  • If a photographer is considering supplying an image to a RF distributor he or she

    should be sure that the releases for all people in the photograph are sufficient to

    allow someone to use the picture in a way that might be considered degrading by one of

    the individuals. If the release won't do that don't put the image into the RF market.

  • Recognize that the clients who have trouble getting images through traditional

    "Rights Protected" agencies due to the nature of the product or service they are trying

    to sell, are naturally drawn to royalty free. It is for this reason that a high

    percentage of the uses made of royalty free images may be offensive to the customers.

  • Recognize that in cases where future usage can not be shut off the exposure for the

    seller is tremendous. It never goes away. If you settle a case this year and a new use

    is discovered, a new case can be filed.

  • Make sure that in the license given the user, is it clearly pointed out that any

    image used for any commerical purpose whatsoever, must have a model or property release

    and the user should be required to request a copy of that release before using the


  • As a photographer, determine who would be responsible if a use is made without an

    acceptable release? What agreements, if any, did you make to indemnify your agency? If

    as a photographer you told the agency that there was no release, and then the agency

    allowed the image to be used as if there was a release is the agency solely

    responsible? In the new Tony Stone agreement the photographer is responsible, even if

    he or she told the agency there was no release, or if later it turns out that the

    release was inadequate.

  • You may have to pay litigation costs, even if you later win your case.

  • Check your general business liability insurance. Is this type of problem covered? Do

    you have "errors and omissions" coverage? A lot may depend on the genesis of the event.

    If it was a "mistake" or inadvertent it might be covered. If it was intentional fraud,

    or gross negligence it would probably not be covered.

  • Story 182


    October 19, 1998

    In considering the role the internet is likely to play

    in the future, it is worth examining a few internet statistics. The statistics I have

    included were drawn from four principle sources: Andrew Kantor's seminar at Internet

    World in October, Barbara Brundage's presentation at Photo East and a recent PACA

    members survey on image scanning and storage practices and TrendWatch's survey on

    "Creatives Use Of The Internet". Barbara is president of Pacific Stock in Honolulu.

    Andrew is executive editor or "Earth Web" in New York.

    It should be noted that most internet statistics are based on projections based on very

    small amounts of hard data. Thus, various "authoritative" sources can produce widely

    differing results. The numbers below may be more indicative of trends rather than hard


    Net Users

    There will be somewhere between 120 and 150 million web users by the end of 1998. In

    1994 the estimated number of users was 25 million. By the end of 1996 it had more than

    doubled to 57 million, and the steady growth is expected to continue.

    About 55% to 60% of these users are in North America. Europe has 20% to 25% of the

    users, but the level of growth in Europe has been flat. Use in Eastern Europe is going

    up and the use in the northern countries (Norway, Sweden, Finland) is among the highest

    per capita in the world. The Asia/Pacific region represents about 15% of total users

    and that percentage is increasing. This leaves the rest of the world with maybe 5% of

    the users.

    81% of internet users have some college experience and half have a degree. However, in

    the U.S. only 54% have college experience which means that in the U.S. younger people

    and non-college educated business men and women use the net to a much greater degree

    than they do in other countries.

    In the U.S. the average household income of families using the internet is $52,500

    which is much higher than the $37,005 average for the country according the U.S.

    census. The average age of internet users is 35 to 36.

    Sixty percent of internet users in the U.S. are male. Blacks, American Indians and

    women over 50 are the fastest growing segments of the internet population.


    Eighty two percent of net users say they have used it for shopping and estimates of the

    numbers that have actually bought something on-line range from 27 million to 36


    In 1997 consumer sales on the net were estimated to be just under $1 billion, but one

    year later there are estimates that the worldwide spending on-line in 1998 was between

    $26 and $32 billion. Thirteen billion of that was in the U.S. market.

    It is important to note that internet shopping is still less than 1% of the $2.6

    trillion annual retail sales in the U.S. Nonetheless, there are some segments of the

    market where sales are much higher than others. It is estimated that 5% to 8% of total

    book sales will eventually occur on line through companies like Amazon.com. A huge

    percent of computer equipment is already being purchased on-line. Sales of financial

    and travel services are big on the web.

    Most notable in our industry is Getty's claim that full web commerce represented 10% of

    their total sales in the third quarter of 1998 (thanks largely to PhotoDisc and

    Allsport). Given Getty's size, and considering their sales alone, their on-line sales

    already represent almost 2% of total still stock photo sales worldwide. If we add in

    all the other on-line stock photo sellers, on-line sales may currently represent 4% to

    5% of current worldwide sales in our industry.

    Fifty nine percent of the revenue currently being generated on-line comes from

    established retailers using the web to complement other sales channels, such as

    mail-order catalogs and physical stores.

    Other sources estimate that by 2002 around $300 billion in goods and services will be

    purchased annually on the web. John Chambers, CEO of Cisco Systems goes much higher and

    says net sales will be between $1 to $2 trillion by 2002.

    Business to business transactions are expected to account for 80% of the e-commerce

    throughout the next 5 years. By 2002 the U.S. is expected to account for 63% of all


    Right now, internet users say they are more likely to buy on-line than to buy from

    print catalogs -- but the difference is just a couple percentage points. Nevertheless,

    it is clear that a large number of interent users are very comfortable with buying


    The principle reason people, in general, give for not shopping on-line is that they

    "can't see the product" and they "can't test it." Clearly, this will not be an issue

    for stock photography buyers. Reviewing an image online gives the buyer the same

    information that they get when purchasing from a print catalog -- and much more

    accurate information than they would get if if they request a file search or make an


    Other reasons people give for not shopping online are: (1) that they don't feel safe,

    (2) concerns for the privacy of the data they supply, (3) unreliable web sites, (4)

    lack of coordination among web sites and distribution channels, and (5) that it is

    easier to shop locally.

    Internet shoppers tend to shop by brand because they know the quality of the product

    and service that certain brands provide. In the stock photo area the "quality of

    product" issue is unlikely to play much of a role because stock photo buyers see

    exactly what they are getting. Selection and service will be extremely important.

    Customers will want to fulfill as much of their needs as possible at one location. They

    will want prompt and courteous attention when they need service. Andrew Kantor pointed

    out that the web can't do service nearly as well as a human, and that the large on-line

    operations have trouble concentrating on service.

    Barbara Brundage also said, "The internet will force many middlemen and distributors to

    transform their business models or face decline or liquidation."

    According to a Price Waterhouse/World Economic Forum survey, nearly 80% of global CEO's

    surveyed believe e-commerce will reshape how they do business. Fifty nine percent said

    it will create a significant change to their companies while 20% said it will

    completely change the way they do business.

    The challenge for many in the stock photo industry will be to modify their current

    business model to fit the new realities.

    Foreign Demand

    Barbara Brundage surveyed selected foreign agents in the UK, Netherlands, Belgium,

    Austria, Japan, Brazil and Argentina to get their perspective on the internet.

    All agents either had a web site running, or had one under construction which will

    offer clients a large selection of images.

    All agents plan to feature images from their affiliates on their web sites and all but

    one said they would provide their images to be featured on the U.S. agency web sites.

    The general consensus was that printed catalogs will be good for at least 2 to 3 years,

    but will be replaced by the Internet within 5-10 years. Some believe print catalogs are

    here to stay. Foreign clients prefer personal contact and want the agent to do

    research. Foreign agents expect this to continue. As it has been with print catalogs,

    the clients will either find the image they need quickly and easily, or contact the

    agency to help them with research. Agents view web sites, and print catalogs, as

    marketing tools that promote the entire library.

    The majority of agents surveyed felt that the availability of royalty free images had

    not cut into their sales at this time.

    One concern of foreign agents is what will happen when the same images are offered on

    the web sites of several different affiliates. It is generally believed that if each

    agent is offered territorial exclusivity for the images handled, as is the common

    practice today, there should be no problem.

    What Are U.S. Agencies Doing?

    PACA recently surveyed their members on the subject of Image Scanning and Storage

    Practices. Fifty Seven agencies responded and seventeen of these had more then 20

    employees which means that the survey is somewhat overweighed with responses from

    larger agencies.

    More than 85% of the agencies are doing some scanning of images in house. Almost 90%

    send digital files to customers, at least occasionally. When asked how they deliver

    these digital files to their customers 77.2% responded on-line, 75.4% said zip or jaz

    disc, and 56.1% write the image files to custom CD's.

    The file sizes delivered are: less than 16MB (21%), between 16MB and 24MB (16%), larger

    than 24MB (9%) and (51%) depending on size requested by the customers.

    Almost all members are storing images in JPEG format, but most also store images in at

    least one other format with 70.2% naming TIFF.

    Among the problems encountered when sending images to customers are dissatisfaction

    with scan quality, customers wanting higher resolution than the agency's scanners are

    capable of producing, and complaints that the files took too long to download.

    Creatives Use Of The Internet

    According to TrendWatch 32,000 creative businesses have web sites. Only one-third of

    these actually host the site themselves, another 1/3 use Internet service providers and

    the remaining 1/3 rely on outside webmasters.

    More than 21,000 of these businesses work on client web sites. Of this 21,000, 83% work

    on promotional projects, 63% develop web strategies for their clients, and 83% provide

    web page design services. Only 8% host a client site, but 20% do serve as webmaster for

    their clients. Only 9% of clients's websites were used to check order status or account


    Thirty-one percent of the sites use digital photography on the sites and 29% use stock

    photography. Fifteen percent use audio clips and 14% use video clips.

    The TrendWatch survey is based upon nearly 750 statistically representative creative

    firms including ad agencies, design firms, publishers, commercial photographers and

    corporate esign departments. The survey was of 3200 creative firms with a response rate

    of 27%. TrendWatch uses a 'bottom-up process' that starts with business owners to yield

    clear and accurate trend monitoring.

    Story 187


    Indications are that the publication dates of a number of stock agency catalogs are

    being delayed. The longer it takes to get an image where it can be seen by clients,

    the longer it takes to recover production costs. Check with your agency to see what is

    happening with their scheduled catalog release.

    We are not sure, but agencies could be finding that it is taking longer to recover

    costs from previous catalogs. They may not want to further reduce the sales of the

    images that are already in the hands of clients by making new options available.

    Copyright © 1999 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.  


    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