Rights-management and Royalty-free - a tactic!
Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 10:34PM I entered the world of commercial photography long after the arrival of royalty free imagery. Its arrival as an affordable and simpler system for buyers as compared to rights management was a mixed blessing. Picture buyers welcomed it due to the added freedom over usage and photographers complained it reduced their control over their images and reduced prices.
In 2011 the two licence types for the purchase of stock photographs are now equal partners in most agencies and there is a new villain on the block. This new target for photographers to complain about is a subset of royalty free - microstock. Microstock combines the one-off fee in return for free non-exclusive use of the image, but this time for a tiny price - often as low as a dollar. Bad news for photographers but another story altogether.
As a new photographer in 2004, I followed the advice of the 'old and bold' - the experienced veterans of stock who were sceptical of royalty free. I could see why - they advocated the advantages of retaining control over images by licensing them for a particular purpose and allowing exclusivity. However, the price of rights managed licences can often now be lower than royalty free rates due to increased competition and oversupply of images.
Royalty free might not be in the best interests of the photographer, but as long as microstock is avoided, it now has a place in my workflow with editors at my agencies.
My rule of thumb when selecting the licence type for a photograph is:
Is the image one that, regardless of quality, I can go out now and reproduce? If so, I may choose Royalty Free.
Is the image one that has a definite uniqueness or high cost of production? If so, would choose Rights Managed. This keeps the image under my control long-term and allows for high-value licences.














