pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Never thought this could be happen! Sold an SR-EL-Licence...unbelieveable.  (Read 9400 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 24, 2011, 15:18 »
0
When i started at Dreamstime und also during the last 25 month i never ever thought that any customer would buy the whole rights at any image. I always thought that this was a concept mistake by Dreamstime done in the beginning without any market relevance.
Well, yesterday it happened. Someone bought a SR-EL-Licence from me. I can't believe it.
Does this happend to anyone else or is this the exception what approve the rule?


« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2011, 15:21 »
0
Yes I sold one once.  I don't usually agree to them but this was a low selling image at all sites so I didn't mind.
Congrats on  your sale :D

redwater

  • retro stock illustrations
« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2011, 15:26 »
0
Congrats on your sale! I sold 2 SR-EL-Licence during the last 4 years.

« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2011, 15:26 »
0
In my case it was a good selling image, but it is an illustration, i can do it better and in a new way now...

« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2011, 15:32 »
0
Congrates to you. I never thought this could be happen. Interesting to hear it does. Thank you for your replys.

« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2011, 16:10 »
0
Congrats, those seem to be very rare!

Exactly two years ago I sold an SR-EL. It sold for $300 of which I got $175. Today I think it's quite low for the full rights, but it was a simple vector "burst" illustration with rays of light, so it was probably a very good deal.

I opted out a couple months ago though, because I just can't give away the full rights to any of my images. Before that I had my SR-EL prices set to $3000 on average which I would never expect a buyer to pay for an image, but was a price point I kind of could agree with for that kind of license. Later I decided to opt out altogether as I didn't want to insult buyers either with those kind of prices.

« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2011, 16:29 »
0
. Before that I had my SR-EL prices set to $3000 on average which I would never expect a buyer to pay for an image,

Why not? $3000 is totally doable.

« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2011, 16:46 »
0
. Before that I had my SR-EL prices set to $3000 on average which I would never expect a buyer to pay for an image,

Why not? $3000 is totally doable.

Yeah but I'm not really sure that's actually happening on the micros, I mean there's a big gap from a $50 extended license to a $3000 buyout. And given how rare these sales are even at $300 I guess I'd have to have a portfolio of at least 10.000 images to have a shot. And truth is, I actually don't want to sell the full rights for $3000 even if it's worth much less, and then there's all the hassle removing the image from the 20+ agencies I submit to, getting it off of their partner programs and all in like 48 hours (I believe it is). Also you'd have to constantly be on the watch for such sales when you're on vacation etc. to be able to remove the images timely and in accordance with Dreamstime's requirements. All in all it's just not for me.

« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2011, 16:46 »
0
In my case it was a 800$ sale, i earned 400$.  That's a good deal for the buyer and also to me. The image earned 120-150$ in front. I spent more time than it is now sold, but, as an illustration i can do it again. Now knowing it will be sell. (i only offer pictures out of the second line to DR, 590 online, well 589 now).
The Image was only accepted by 3 agencys, they earned well and now this single image is gone.
I would never think about offering my images to 20 agencys..i offer to seven and this is a lot of wasted time at the last two.

3.000$ is, in my opinion, a price out of the 80's last century. For shure some image are worth that...but nothing what i produce.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 17:02 by bad to the bone »

« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2011, 17:15 »
0
I don't know how buyers view paying for buyouts through the micros but $3000 is not a high price even for today. I still see licenses for more than that without a buyout but obviously not through a micro agency. Simplicity has nothing to do with an images value. The simplest are often most valuable. I wouldn't let someone knock down your asking price with that argument.

lisafx

« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2011, 17:34 »
0
Congrats on the sale.  Glad it worked out for you :)

I've been asked to sell the rights a number of times over the years, but since it always involved images with models in them, I wouldn't consider it.  

If it was an object or if I did illustrations I might sell the rights, but the price would have to be right depending on the difficulty of creating it.  

« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2011, 20:09 »
0
Well, for shure 400$ is a very low price for a buyout, but that's micro. I had a lot of requests since my time as costributor for doing illustrations on customer needs....from clients who saw my work at micros. None of them ever gave me an order, even if i offered a scarry low price.
Whilst non of my normal clients would discuss about prices at this level. For a microclient 400$ is a enourmos ammount. Not in advertising-business where you create something on clients needs.

To compare these two worlds seems to me nonsensical.

« Reply #12 on: February 24, 2011, 21:26 »
0
The concept in RF doesn't make a lot of sense.  If it was a rights managed site, where the image might only have been sold a few times to specific markets, there could be value to buying it.   But if somebody buys out an image that has already sold many times on an RF site, what value do they really get? 

No new user in future will have it, but there might be lots of existing uses of it kicking around on all kinds of websites, etc.   The buyer has no assurance of any kind of meaningful exclusivity, since the RF seller can't retrieve it from all the previous users.

« Reply #13 on: February 24, 2011, 22:09 »
0
It depends. If someone would like to have the security to have "all" rights...now he have them. And, just as an idea, if some of the older customers uses this image in an unlegal case and the buyer find's out...it is a very cheap way to make money if he first bought the complete rights of the image :-) We will see this as a interesting businessmodel in the future.

« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2011, 22:14 »
0
The concept in RF doesn't make a lot of sense.  If it was a rights managed site, where the image might only have been sold a few times to specific markets, there could be value to buying it.   But if somebody buys out an image that has already sold many times on an RF site, what value do they really get? 

No new user in future will have it, but there might be lots of existing uses of it kicking around on all kinds of websites, etc.   The buyer has no assurance of any kind of meaningful exclusivity, since the RF seller can't retrieve it from all the previous users.

Buying it from microstock channels for exclusive use doesn't really make any sense, so one must conclude it is for another reason.  My thought is that it would make sense for someone who might have a need to acquire additional licenses in the future and wants to guarantee availability...  For example, if the Extended print license gives you license to print and sell 10,000 items, and you thought you might exceed that.  On DT it is 50 credits for the P-EL, so if you had a need for 5 P-ELs (to be able to sell 50,000 items) it would seem logical to just buy the image outright if it was for sale for anything close to $250.  Even $800 isn't that much to add to an item's unit cost if you are making 10,000+ units.  And you eliminate the risk of the image been taken down in the future and come close to preventing anyone else from using the image.  Further, you get all the benefits of ALL the extended licenses for one price.

At some point, one would hope the buyer would just hire a photographer or designer to do their project so they do truly have something unique they can market.

« Reply #15 on: February 25, 2011, 02:59 »
0
i wonder what usage that extended license didn't allow, but SR-EL is okay?

are they allowed to resell it?

Microbius

« Reply #16 on: February 25, 2011, 04:08 »
0
It's mainly so they can have exclusive use of the image. But is a bit of a mis-sell as people that have already bought it RF will probably still be using it in future. All they're really getting is an assurance that you wont sell it to anyone else in future.
Funnily enough I had an email from DT today telling me someone wanted me to SR to an image, but it sells quite well so I refused.

« Reply #17 on: February 25, 2011, 04:32 »
0
so we didn't really need to choose the SR license and set the price? dreamstime will inform us when someone requests?

are you allowed to offer a price?

It's mainly so they can have exclusive use of the image. But is a bit of a mis-sell as people that have already bought it RF will probably still be using it in future. All they're really getting is an assurance that you wont sell it to anyone else in future.
Funnily enough I had an email from Dreamstime today telling me someone wanted me to SR to an image, but it sells quite well so I refused.

« Reply #18 on: February 25, 2011, 06:05 »
0
I would never think about offering my images to 20 agencys..i offer to seven and this is a lot of wasted time at the last two.

You never know what the arrows in the right menu chart here at MSG will show in three years from now, so I like having my foot in the door with as many sales channels as possible. The main reason I keep adding new agencies to my list though, is because I feel a strong urge to support fair paying agencies even if I never get a sale there. Call me overoptimistic but I actually feel like I'm making a difference that way and it makes me feel good. There are still agencies that I choose not to submit to, like Vectorstock. And DepositPhotos will probably not get more from me as the RPD is low (and the brand / connection to DepositFiles gets me worried).
Unfortunately recent commission cuts at IS and FT has forced me to submit to agencies I didn't really want to cooperate with in the first place, like Crestock.

3.000$ is, in my opinion, a price out of the 80's last century. For shure some image are worth that...but nothing what i produce.

It all boils down to how much earnings potential the image has, in my opinion. I would feel bad charging $3000 for an image that earned me just $10 as RF in three years. Then again I would lose sleep if I sold an image for $3000 with an earnings potential of $5000+

Zeus > I know simple images can be of good value and I wouldn't charge according to the complexity / simplicity of the illustration, rather on it's earnings potential. Afterall it's about the artist being properly compensated. However simple images have to be unique to have value. Vector star bursts are very easy to replicate and there are probably tens of thousands out there to this date. It was absolutely not worth $3000 if you ask me.

You could also go ahead and offer computer generated fractals for $3000, but the person sitting next to you is offering the same images for $100. And the person sitting next to him is offering them for $50. Because it still pays off.
And the buyer would just go ahead and find a similar fractal for $50. So there's the concept of supply and demand that kicks in when images aren't unique. That's why I think images should be priced according to their earnings potential-

« Reply #19 on: February 25, 2011, 06:17 »
0
But again, I'm seeing a lot of BEAUTIFUL illustrations at iStock that just aren't selling because they aren't too stock oriented or just too specific / artistic. I understand why others would charge much more for these kind of illustrations, but I'm not one of them. I'm a microstock contributor who makes generic stock images and try to make images that appeal to as many buyers as possible.

And I think $800 is a fair price for an image that has earned you $120-$150 being for sale a couple of years. If it has just sold for a month or two and earned you that kind of money the price should be higher if you ask me.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2839 Views
Last post March 23, 2007, 11:17
by ptlee
5 Replies
3209 Views
Last post June 08, 2007, 10:05
by ikostudio
28 Replies
8270 Views
Last post September 15, 2008, 02:56
by sgraphics
7 Replies
3189 Views
Last post August 19, 2008, 20:18
by leszek
184 Replies
41656 Views
Last post February 13, 2010, 22:56
by RacePhoto

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results