Rights Managed vs Royalty Free
Where to Market your Stock and Travel Stock Images
One of the most critical business decisions you will make as a stock photographer today is how to license your images. Should your pictures be marketed under a Rights Managed (RM) model or is Royalty Free (RF) more appropriate.
The wrong decision can cost you thousands of dollars in sales. If you place an image in the RM category that should be RF the sales of that image will be few and far between, where it might well have flourished in RF. Similarly, if you place what should have been a RM picture into RF sales, you could miss out on potentially huge advertising sales (as well as open yourself up to legal problems in limited circumstances).
Before going further, it is important to understand both RM and RF sales models.
Rights Managed image licenses are granted for a specific type and specific period of use. When your image is licensed, someone, somewhere keeps track of that license period and use. That way, Coke does not use the same image that Pepsi is currently using. Everybody knows the history of the image, so everybody knows where it can be used in the future.
RM licenses are generally much more expensive than RF licenses.
Rights Management also means keeping images from going where they should not.. If you have, for example, an image that requires a model or property release for commercial use, but does not have the needed release, than it has to be a RM image. That way the image can be tracked to assure that it is not used commercially. All editorial images are RM by definition.
The license of an RF image pretty much lets the licensor use that image as often and for whatever purpose they like. Noone, except perhaps the licensor is keeping track.
It is a common misconception that the grant of an RF license means that the licensor can do as they please with the image. The license granted with the RF image will always specify what can and cannot be done with the image. A common exclusion, for example, it the use of the image on a t shirt or coffee mug. Capitalism being what it is, that "extended right" can often be purchased for a few extra dollars.
Other limitations on the RF can be found.
A RF generally costs substantially less than does the RM license. Further, the RF license allows for much greater usage than does the RM. That translates into fewer lower cost sales (assuming a fixed demand) for the photographer.
The observant among you is now asking what genius developed a product model that is so bad for the photographer. Would the photographer be better off having more sales at a higher price per sale.
You bet! But market forces and the laws of supply and demand got in the way.
Given those market forces, it is critical that each image be placed in the business model that will maximize its revenue. We are back to the question, how do you choose? RM or RF?
Part of the answer lies in the definition of RM. All editorial images have to be marketed as RM. Also, any image with a recognizable face that does not have a model release must be a RM image. Further, photographs that contain corporate logos, trademarks and recognizable property that does not have a property release must be in the RM category.
This includes images ranging from paparazzi shots of Tom Cruise, to city skylines with corporate names on the sides of buildings. The travel stock photographer has to be particularly aware of the later.
It is not a good idea just to put everything else in the higher paying RM category. The laws of economics tell us that when items are similar, price governs and the less dear will be purchased. A photograph must be distinct, or have some added value, relative to other similar available photographs, for it to profit as a RM photograph. A great image, marketed as RM will not sell if a similar great (or even good) image is available RF at a lower cost.
An image should be marketed RM if it is unique by virtue of time, place or style.
If you created an image of something that happens only occasionally, or only once, you have something unique. By virtue of that uniqueness, the image should be marketed RM.
Similarly, if you have an image of a place that is difficult or impossible to get to, or is often overlooked because it is mundane, you can put that image into your RM collection.
Finally, if you have created a photo of an otherwise mundane or already overly photographed subject, that is unique because of your shooting style, then that picture deserves RM status. I’m not talking here about an image being great or even extraordinary. Extraordinary images are commonplace. I’m talking about product differentiation based on style, based on a unique perspective that you bring to the image. It is a perspective that noone else has. When this image is viewed, it is recognized as yours just by its style. The image is not only extraordinary it is exceptional.
The RM vs RF question comes down to the simple economic laws of supply and demand that Adam Smith outlined hundreds of years ago. These laws dictate your marketing decisions today. Because you are the supplier of the image we have only looked at supply rules. Generally, the stock photographer cannot effect the demand side of the equation.
If there is a supply of images similar to yours available RF, then you have to use the RF model. If you have a unique product, you can set your own price, which means using the RM business model.
Sadly, photographs have become a commodity.
