Sustaining A Creative Economy: It’s Up To Us
© Michael Stevens/evolveimages.com
For too long we’ve been hearing about the downward spiral of royalties photographers receive from their stock photography agents. By way of example, iStockphoto.com, pays a royalty of 15% to photographers each time an image is sold. Meaning that photographers receive 15 cents on the dollar each time an image is licensed. In spite of pressure from industry groups and much hand-wringing, royalties continue to slide and as a result many talented professionals have abandoned stock as a profitable way to generate income or have quit creating images altogether.
Certainly this problem is exacerbated by the parallel downward spiral of prices for stock images. The proliferation of user generated content and citizen journalists, equipped with powerful, pro-level digital SLRs, whose primary income is not dependent upon image sales, contributes to this effect by generating an over-supply of images that far outstrips demand, further eroding both price and royalties.
These combined factors have created an imbalance in our “Creative Economy.” A Creative Economy exists when commercial artists, who are dedicated to the craft of producing professional images, are fairly compensated for their work so that they have resources they need to produce more exceptional work that in turn feeds the creativity AND economy of those creative professionals (designers, art directors, editors, producers) who utilize their images to generate revenue from campaigns, media and products.
Reciprocal. Fair. Balanced.
We can complain or we can do something about it. So here are ten truths that we have adopted and believe are essential in sustaining a Creative Economy:
1) Share royalties fairly: At least 50% of the revenue generated by a stock license should be shared with the artist or copyright holder.
2) Fees should reflect the relative value of the image: Images with higher production costs – especially those that include talent with signed commercial model releases– should command higher fees. Conversely, those images that have lower production costs – or are duplicative or non-distinct– should be priced lower.
3) Simplify licensing of rights managed images: Buyers need a simple and effective way to license rights managed images.
4) Make it easy for buyers to re-license images: Automated reminders with a one-click option to re-license should be standard.
5) Focus on quality over quantity: Professionals cannot nor should not compete with the oversupply of images found on the web. Focus on producing high quality professional images that anticipate the current and future demands of professional photo buyers.
6) Deliver the highest resolution image file available for every license: Give buyers the flexibility they need to produce campaigns and products that deliver maximum impact and showcase your work in the best possible manner.
7) Diversify: Just as professional buyers will always explore multiple sources to locate images, professional photographers should also look for representation through multiple distributors – both domestic and international- including reps, agents, galleries and yes, even, microstock.
8) Assign image exclusives: To preserve both the real and perceived value of your portfolio, set aside some percentage of your images and place them on an image exclusive basis with an agency.
9) Charge higher fees for your assignment work: When buyers know they can hire you on assignment for less than what it will cost them to license one of your images, we should all go home.
10) Evangelize the creative economy among buyers AND sellers of images: Get involved. Join a professional association, host a webinar, write a blog, tweet this post. Take action to educate and engage. And listen carefully for opportunities.
If we all do our part, the principles of a creative economy should work for everyone.
Now it’s up to us. Evolve or face the consequences.
I like your ten truths concept. We need to work together so that we can all earn a fair living. There is a growing unbalance in the photography industry. Part of the problem is photographers accepting low rates. I have been guilty of this and have resolved to work harder toward demanding higher fees. Let’s work together to improve our wonderful profession!
Sorry if I am misunderstanding this, but you state that 1cents per dollar goes to the photographer, but the 1st truth is that 50% should go to the artist. Can you clarify or point out where I’ve gone astray?
@Roland – yes, we are in agreement. We believe as you do that at least 50% of the license fee should be returned to the artist. This principle is a core foundation of our “Ten Truths.” Regrettably both agencies and photographers have been complicit in establishing thresholds that are well below 50% hence my reference to other agencies where photographers are being paid as little as 15 cents on the dollar every time an image is licensed. We think there is a better way that benefits photographers and creatives alike.
Pardon me, I meant to write 15 cents per dollar. My mistake.
*1cents per dollar
I agree 100%. I’ve been a stock photographer myself for over 7 years now. As an experiment I started my own mini-microstock agency to house my own images, but eventually decided to open up the platform to a handful of my closer colleagues in the business. I would never think of offering them any less than 50% commissions. I actually eat the merchant fees, hosting costs, and other fees myself, so I’m probably really offering more than half.
There definitely needs to be more of a trend where we stop feeding the giants that have been taken over by corporate greed, and that think they can continue to nickle and dime talented artists. There’s a big difference between selling at microstock prices, and earning 50%, than there is selling at microstock prices and earning 15%. This is a numbers game, and those pennies do add up fast.
Having my own stock agency has been so much work, and many times I regret experimenting with this venture, but I don’t give up on things that easily. I definitely appreciate the other side of the relationship I’ve had with agencies all of these years even moreso. Does that mean that they can continue to justify cutting artist commissions that much? Definitely not.
Nice article. There is definitely a disturbing trend of falling royalties in microstock. Like Todd, I responded to this by opening a site to sell my own work at 100% royalties. Since doing that, I’ve stopped uploading to all of the major micros and even left some of them. Who knew you could make money without iStock?
It’s been a tough pill to swallow, but I think concentrating my efforts on my own agency and a few fair partners has been good medicine. Things have started to turn around, and I’m a lot more optimistic about my future.
I wish everybody the best in their efforts to clean up their own houses. Hopefully, it might even inspire (or force) some of these agencies to change things for the better.
9 is a great point as clients now understand that if they want good images at a reasonable cost and have exclusive rights to them it is often cheaper to commission a good photographer.