Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: mr purdy on July 13, 2012, 01:35:16 pm
-
Hi guys, I was recently approached by a NYC-based stock photo agency, and they want to remit to me 45% and keep 55% of Net Licence Fees.
Does that sound about right?
Thanks.
P.S. I realize this belongs in the Business forum,but that place is dead, and I need an answer today ;-)
-
sadly, yes
-
Yeah. It's been that way for years.
-
Well I guess it's better than having all my files sitting in a closet on hard drives doing nothing productive 99.9 percent of the time.
-
Ron, can you disclose which agency is and provide the url? I've heard a lot worse than this.
Eduardo
-
I have one agent giving 50% and the rest lower, probably 30% by the time international sales and agent fees are taken into account. If your agent supplies through a third party they will want a cut too. Your 45% could be 30% or lower. Depends on the material though.
Shaun
-
WOW, do pro's still shoot stock at theses percentages or is it (good) amateurs wanting a little back towards their investment/hobby?
Never shot stock personally but used to know a few photographers that did and it accounted for 80% of their turnover. Have things changed drastically recently or were these low rates always the case?
-
Suggests that there's a gap in the market for someone to offer a better rate & clean-up
-
In my experience 50% was as good as it got, bearing in mind the clout of the bigger players and revenue that could be achieved only a few years ago, this was a very nice earner.
Shaun
-
Suggests that there's a gap in the market for someone to offer a better rate & clean-up
There's not really a market anymore. No one is willing to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to license a stock image when they can get it from one of the dollar-each "stock" web sites. Without the high licensing fees, there is no agency willing to give photogs 60 or 80%. It's been a race to the bottom for years now.
-
WOW, do pro's still shoot stock at theses percentages or is it (good) amateurs wanting a little back towards their investment/hobby?
I do not "shoot for stock", they will just be licencing images I have shot previously and have sitting around in my archives. It'll mostly be food and travel, not fashion. Stuff like this:
www.ronpurdyeats.com
And as to Eduardo's question - I am not sure I should say which agency it is, but I can say it is a branch of a very good photo agency representing photographers for assignment work, and I am confident that they have the best interest of photographers in mind.
-
I am confident that they have the best interest of photographers in mind.
I've got some land in Florida I'd like to talk to you about. It's only for seasonal use but it's got a great view when it's not under water.
-
Klaban and kc: do either of you have experience with a boutique stock agency associated with a photo agency or similar?
I was approached a bunch of times by Trunk Archive some years ago, and I have not heard bad things about them either.
-
I've never heard a stock agency referred to as 'boutique.'
Stock has been a diminishing market for the last few years and it's really hard to call it a market at all these days.
If you think you can track how you're images are used/sold and get paid on a credible basis then go for it. Accountability is everything in stock and it's nearly impossible to have.
-
"Stock has been a diminishing market for the last few years and it's really hard to call it a market at all these days."
Actually, the demand for stock is stable and perhaps increasing slightly.
What has disappeared, is the ability,for most, to generate enough revenue from it to support
a sustainable business model based on the reality that the bulk of the buying public have
migrated to the low end RF or micro sources .
I've derived my sole income from stock for well over twenty years and have watched gross monthly
sales drop from the mid 5 figure range to well under $10K per month even though my agents are
completing more actual sales. The dollar value per sale has bottomed out.
There still is room to make money in stock, either at the high,high end with slick,expensive to
produce,unique content or at the near bottom of the price scale with massive content production and
far-reaching distribution but it will take a courageous sole to make the kind of investment necessary
knowing that the return will only decline.
Mark
www.marktomalty.com
-
It was a good outlet for pictures, especially if you could use stuff that was extras from commissioned work - I'm going back to the mid-80s. After that, and when the huge-money men took over from ex-photographers to run those photo-libraries, it turned sour IMO.
I gave up after being with the best for a few years.
Rob C
-
The difference between your statement and mine is a matter of definition.
The volume of sales doesn't make it a market for the photographer.
My point is that it's not a viable market as you support in your statement below.
...it will take a courageous sole to make the kind of investment necessary knowing that the return will only decline.