MicrostockGroup

Here is an article that discusses some of the issues involved with selling images outright:

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003219743

I strongly urge everyone on this site to consider how much they're willing to take for all image rights.  The lower the price you set, the less others are able to sell their images for.  There is tremendous downward pressure on prices as it is.

Let's not undervalue our hard work.  An image is worth more than $100 or even $350.  You can sell a print of your photo for $75; why sell all rights to it for a mere $25 more?

Here is the link:

http://luckyoliver.com/guide/buyout_price

I believe that it is only an option for exclusive photos.

I have to disagree with you a tiny bit... I value my work and I'm willing to sell some of my images for $100 (net). All depends on what I think the image is worth and what the customer is willing to pay. In my one buy out - I thought the price was good for me and I am pleased with my deal.

If I set my price too high, the buyer might not buy. Too low and i might lose out on revenue. That's a hard thing to figure out!

And remember - hindsight is 20-20!

You've said it there, Maunger. That's why I'd never sell all rights for $100. You think 'Wow! Why does they want to buy this image?' You sell it for $100 and then you see it used in a major advertising campaign and realise you could have got thousands for it.

That 'bird in the hand' proverb is a dangerous one as far as artists go (and I class photographers as artists. We're creative people)

Can you bargain with them? You can bet that any buyer is going to want to get the picture for the lowest possible price. See how high they'll go. How they really value it.

Yes. I read that guy's post. I must admit, I think I'd probably feel a bit sick if that happened with one of my images. Front cover of a big-circulation US magazine for maximum $20 (and probably only 25c)!

But think of these points:

1.  He'd still only get $20 (or 25c) for that. Why? Well, the magazine was legally able to buy the use of it for that purpose at that price. So why would they pay more by buying the picture outright? In other words, it doesn't make any difference.

2.  Even after that usage he can still sell the image again and again. That's something that people overlook in this game. I get people saying. "What! You sell a picture for 25c! Are you crazy?" But what they don't understand is that a good picture will sell again and again and again at that price. And may even pick up several $20 extended use payments, too. You only need 5 of those to match up to what you may sell the image outright for.

You could end up selling a the rights to a picture that would earn you far more in the long run, especially as you can have it with a number of agencies.

As you've already observed, you never can tell which pictures are going to be the biggies. I've had extended sales on the most weird pictures, some which I even hesitated about uploading (one was of a jumbled pile of wood ends that I took on the spur of the moment.)

And there's a guy over on Alamy who's just sold a picture of some ropes and climbing shackles (carabiners, I think they're called) that he took on the spur of the moment too ... and he sold it for $6'800 to a bank for their advertising, but he still keeps the copyright.