Stock photography is licensed in several ways. Of 238 respondents to the recent Selling Stock survey, 179 licensed some work as rights-managed, and 37 licensed under Getty Images’ rights-ready model. Stock income reported was usually less than the respondents’ total income, because many photographers earned some revenue from sources other than stock.
[Ed: Figures corrected October 16th, 2008, 2:15PM EST]
| REVENUE BY STOCK-LICENSING MODEL |
| Stock-licensing model |
Number of respondents using model |
Total photography revenue of respondent group (all services) |
Stock-only revenue of respondent group |
| Gross |
Net |
All licensing models |
This licensing model |
| Total |
Average |
Total |
Average |
Total |
Average |
| RM |
179 |
23,592,367 |
131,801 |
14,625,689 |
81,708 |
13,625,631 |
9,968,287 |
55,689 |
| RR |
37 |
12,280,467 |
331,905 |
8,933,290 |
241,440 |
9,760,034 |
1,678,618 |
45,368 |
| RF |
67 |
16,255,890 |
242,625 |
10,508,435 |
156,842 |
13,513,092 |
6,882,652 |
102,726 |
| Subscription |
2 |
13,830 |
6,915 |
10,530 |
5,265 |
13,830 |
4,043 |
2,022 |
| Microstock |
20 |
1,690,695 |
84,535 |
678,005 |
33,900 |
1,580,458 |
1,267,457 |
63,373 |
| Not applicable |
16 |
1,621,300 |
101,331 |
957,700 |
59,856 |
463,625 |
461,025 |
28,814 |
The fact that 65 respondents produce royalty-free images is not a surprise. An increasing number of rights-managed shooters have ventured into royalty-free production in recent years. One respondent reported uncharacteristically high royalty-free revenues, earning substantially more than many stock agencies. Thus, to get a more realistic picture of average income for this licensing model, the adjusted revenues table excludes his numbers. The adjusted table also excludes the revenues of a photographer who shoots some traditional royalty-free images but specializes in microstock and generates extremely high revenues, thus pushing microstock-revenue averages up disproportionately.
[Ed: Figures corrected October 16th, 2008, 2:15PM EST]
| ADJUSTED REVENUE BY STOCK-LICENSING MODEL |
| Stock-licensing model |
Number of respondents using model |
Total photography revenue of respondent group (all services) |
Stock-only revenue of respondent group |
| Gross |
Net |
All licensing models |
This licensing model |
| Total |
Average |
Total |
Average |
Total |
Average |
| RM |
179 |
23,592,367 |
131,801 |
14,625,689 |
81,708 |
13,625,631 |
9,968,287 |
55,689 |
| RR |
37 |
8,080,467 |
218,391 |
8,933,290 |
145,494 |
5,560,034 |
1,258,618 |
34,017 |
| RF |
65 |
10,955,890 |
168,552 |
10,508,435 |
103,976 |
8,213,092 |
3,080,652 |
47,395 |
| Subscription |
2 |
13,830 |
6,915 |
10,530 |
5,265 |
13,830 |
4,043 |
2,022 |
| Microstock |
19 |
590,695 |
31,089 |
678,005 |
25,158 |
480,458 |
189,457 |
9,971 |
| Not applicable |
16 |
1,621,300 |
101,331 |
957,700 |
59,856 |
463,625 |
461,025 |
28,814 |
Before making these adjustments, royalty-free shooters appeared to earn nearly twice as much from this licensing model as rights-managed shooters earn from rights-managed stock: on average, $102,726 vs. $55,689, respectively. Even the adjusted numbers still show a substantial difference in favor of royalty-free earnings, which exceed rights-managed by close to 18% ($55,689 vs. $47,395).
This can be explained by the fact that those who ventured into royalty-free production were largely the most successful rights-managed shooters who have been very aggressive in producing royalty-free images. This difference can also be the result of human error in responding to the survey: There were 16 respondents who selected “not applicable” among licensing-model choices. How they license their work is unclear. They may be making direct sales, but if they establish prices based on usage, most of those sales should have fallen into the rights-managed category.
The microstock-revenue average of $9,971 is somewhat realistic but is not a true average for all microstock shooters. Certainly, there are some microstocker’s doing very well. iStockphoto has 264 photographers who have had more than 25,000 downloads, and the current average fee per download is $4 to $5. On the other hand, Selling Stock’s small sample included a disproportionate share of the more successful microstock producers. The true average of all people shooting microstock is likely to be much lower.
The survey did not generate enough responses to offer a realistic perspective on income from subscription products.