MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Selling the whole portfolio rights/collection  (Read 16816 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 10, 2009, 00:09 »
0
Hello guys,

do you know how, or is there any chance to sell your whole image rights of your portfolio (perhaps including your all ms accounts)? to whom/where and how much price should you put for all of your hard works?  And is it ok with ms terms?

Thanks alot for your advices

best regards,
Brent

ps: currently i've got around 800 images of 3d render and illustration


avava

« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2009, 00:29 »
0
Hey Brentw,

 There are lots of buy out stock deals but the price per image is growing smaller as well as the opportunity. It was a big thing three years ago most the big agencies were spending tons on holly owned content sold to them buy stock photographers. There was some great money made. They have to be free from contract with any agency and under your copyright then you can sell to the highest bidder. I can tell you the work better be * good or of some niche variety these days at least from my experience. The best deal is to get them to sign to a certain amount of images before you shoot them for a certain price and have some control over the edit this is my preferred arrangement.

Best of luck,
AVAVA

« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2009, 03:10 »
0
Thank you very much for the info AVAVA.. appreciate it  ;)

« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2009, 07:13 »
0
I was have similar idea some time ago. Fotolia staff was tell me that this is illegal because something... don't know why, but they was told me that was written in contract why you don't have right to sell whole portfolio rights.

« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2009, 07:35 »
+1
You may not be allowed to sell your Fotolia account to someone, but you can sure as heck deactivate the account, sell the imagery to someone else, and they can then upload it as the copyright holder.

« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2009, 09:03 »
0
right - you wouldn't sell your portfolio on a site - you'd sell your images offline, transferring copyright, and that person would then reupload the content as the sole copyright holder. 

give us a link and an estimate?  :)

Microbius

« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2009, 09:13 »
0
I'd love to see what the folio looks like and how much you get for it! any chance of a link?

« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2009, 21:37 »
0
Thanks for your opinion shock & sjlocke, that's why i'm still hesitate to post open offer at any forum. So it's not allowed by Fl, but how about with other ms?

to mantonio and microbius, i've pm you, thanks..

« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2009, 23:12 »
0
You should also expect the buyer of your portfolio to include a non-compete clause in the contract - this means you wouldn't be able to produce any microstock work for that specified time (e.g. 1+ years).

« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2009, 00:13 »
0
Wow, your port is actually VERY nice!  A bit pricey for us, I'm thinking - which is unfortunate!  I like the idea of purchasing a few whole collections and yours is top of the line.  I will PM you with some thoughts.

« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2009, 09:55 »
0
Thanks for yr nice comment Matt, you also have a lot of great well posed models with really nice expression photos, beside solid isolated objects! i know how hard to pose a model since my last job at ad agency, it looks easy but actually you really need to be very extremely creative.. :)

i got your point about the clause sharply_done.. thx for the thought

« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2009, 10:02 »
0
I am also curious about your portfolio and what you expect to get for it.Currently I have not the finances to buy a collection but I was always interested in something like this.

helix7

« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2009, 15:54 »
0
This topic comes up pretty regularly, in the context of selling rights to a portfolio of images to a private buyer for resale purposes, not to an agency. As mentioned, it is possible but must be done offline. Some sites like Fotolia won't honor a transfer of ownership of an account.

The only real hurdle seems to be that this just hasn't been done in microstock before. Maybe not even in traditional stock. And so there is no precedent for comparison. It's all possible, but someone would have to be a little pioneering to try it and get through the process of deactivating accounts, making the sale, and seeing if there are any issues for the buyer in re-uploading the images.

Of course, there is also the issue of finding a buyer who can meet your price expectation. In previous discussions, the general rule seemed to be that artists would expect a price of around 5 times the projects annual earnings of a portfolio. So if a portfolio generates $50,000 a year for an artist, their selling price for the whole lot would probably be around $250,000.


Microbius

« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2009, 16:14 »
0
I think that that is absolutely never gonna happen. If I could sell my microstock portfolio for that I'd do it in a flash and pocket myself around $300,000.
No way anyone's gonna come up with that kind of money for it, especially as the value of a microstock image is so short lived.

« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2009, 18:12 »
0
In previous discussions, the general rule seemed to be that artists would expect a price of around 5 times the projects annual earnings of a portfolio. So if a portfolio generates $50,000 a year for an artist, their selling price for the whole lot would probably be around $250,000.

This is why it never happens - people are using a business model that isn't *POSSIBLE* in microstock.  Traditional businesses sell for 3-5 times annual profit.  Microstock is never worth as much as it is today.  It's a declining business model.  Someone's current portfolio is worth about 1-1.5x their last year's profit from those images.  Not 5x.  5x is a great model for like a wedding business - you can anticipate the biz would generate 5 years of the same.  That's not true in micro.

I'd pay $1-$3 per image for every image someone had or $3-8 per image if I got to select them.  There's *no way* EVERY single image of someone's is going to make more than that in the next 3 years.  The difference between buyer expectations and seller expectations is why it never happens.

« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2009, 18:27 »
0
I've also mused about the possibility of buying a portfolio etc, but agree with previous posts about the price. I doubt that there would be anyone willing to pay a significant amount for a portfolio, unless there were something unique about it that would guarantee earnings well into the future.

In terms of your contracts etc. with Fotolia and other agencies, it may be possible to draft a contract that assigning the benefits of your account to another party, but this is distinct from actually "selling" the portfolio, and would probably preclude you from submitting anything to them in the future, and would really depend on the fine print of the contract with Fotolia, which I haven't looked into in detail.

« Reply #16 on: January 13, 2009, 19:32 »
0
... that artists would expect a price of around 5 times the projects annual earnings of a portfolio.

If this can be used as standard, i think i should wait until next year so my portfolio's value would be higher, because i joined microstock just 1,5 years ago and i've been actively uploading only since last 7 months ago, therefore i should expect around $6000 on 2009 alone. (but unfortunately i need urgent fund for financing my apartment, so i'm trying to sell them, *sigh*..)

so i think the valuation method using annual income would also depend on how long a collection has been up and selling.. the longer they have been sold - the lower investor should expect in value. vice versa. please correct me if i'm wrong, thanks for the suggestions..


« Reply #17 on: January 13, 2009, 20:17 »
0
I think Mantonino is closet to the right answer on this.

If someone offered me 1.5x annual earnings for my port I'd think about it. At 2x annual earnings I'd almost certainly sell __ if only because it would give me a couple of years off 'work' and monitoring sales and anyway I could probably generate a bigger and better port in the same timescale.

Microstock is still much too young to be able to predict future values with any certainty but in my experience (4 years) the good images actually do continue to sell and sell __ except of course when they are killed off by IS best match changes.

« Reply #18 on: January 14, 2009, 01:52 »
+1

Of course, there is also the issue of finding a buyer who can meet your price expectation. In previous discussions, the general rule seemed to be that artists would expect a price of around 5 times the projects annual earnings of a portfolio. So if a portfolio generates $50,000 a year for an artist, their selling price for the whole lot would probably be around $250,000.



Artists set their worth at 5 years of income, I do too, but that isnt what i would expect it to sell at.  I set my portofolio worth at 5 years because I own my portfolio and expect it to generate income for 5 years.  If i was going to by a portfolio though, I expect to make a profit on my investment.  If I purchase it for the same 5 years calculation then I would only be hoping to break even.  No one is going to invest $250,000 for a five year term just hoping to break even.  If I invest in a portfolio I want to earn at least 2x, and hopefully 4x what i invested.  So I would agree with mantonio that 1-1.5x a years income is a more likely figure.  That would allow the investor to have to wait 1-2 years to get back his money, then hopefullymake a profit for 2-3 years... unless things change in microstock.

« Reply #19 on: January 14, 2009, 04:05 »
0
Leaf if you say artists set their worth at 5 years income, I would make a really bad deal if I sell my portfolio for 1 X- 1,5 X a years income. So maybe a deal like this where both parties are happy does not really work.

For my own work I would consider 4 - 5 times a years income fair. Thats probably what its worth. But actually I probably would not do it even for this amount.

Mantonino, $1- $3 dollar for every image one has is honestly a bad price, and I would not expect to get much more than snapshots for this price. The price should be according to the quality of the protfolio. We have people here who exceed $3 per image per month easily. 

But what should be taken into account is the reuploading of the portfolio to the websites. It takes a lot of time away and some images might get rejected. So a deal where both parties are happy maybe does not work.

« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2009, 04:29 »
0
For my own work I would consider 4 - 5 times a years income fair. Thats probably what its worth.

That's why you can't obviously get so much from it if that's what its worth. Leaf pointed out that the buyer buys it to get something from it . That's why you have to give him discount. Honest 5 year earnings prediction is a good start, then they would need to talk about how much off the buyer will get. Given the risks of the unstable business and that the honest prediction may not be occurate would mean that 50% off is where reasonable prices would start for portfolio with as much long-term stability as can be reached in this business.

Microbius

« Reply #21 on: January 14, 2009, 04:35 »
0
I've though about this some more. I recon that the value of a static portfolio on microstock halves every year. So a realistic 5 year prediction would be about 2X last years income (1+0.5+0.25+0.125+0.0625=1.9375) 

« Reply #22 on: January 14, 2009, 04:49 »
0
I've though about this some more. I recon that the value of a static portfolio on microstock halves every year. So a realistic 5 year prediction would be about 2X last years income (1+0.5+0.25+0.125+0.0625=1.9375) 

Interesting enough, but what are you basing this on? Do you have empirical data or are you merely speculating? If it's the latter, what assumptions have you made in your model? If the former, what type of images does the portfolio contain?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2009, 04:57 by sharply_done »

« Reply #23 on: January 14, 2009, 05:05 »
0
...
I'd pay $1-$3 per image for every image someone had or $3-8 per image if I got to select them.  There's *no way* EVERY single image of someone's is going to make more than that in the next 3 years.  The difference between buyer expectations and seller expectations is why it never happens.

Sorry, mantonino, but *yes way*. Like ^^^^Freezingpictures said, there are a lot of people here who's portfolio earns much, much more than $3-8 per image in one year, let alone three.

Microbius

« Reply #24 on: January 14, 2009, 05:23 »
0
It's just a guestimate, based on my own portfolio.
I think this is much more realistic then thinking that a portfolio will earn the same as it did in last year for the next five years, which I guess is what is assumed if it is valued at 5X the years earnings?

Iriz

    This user is banned.
« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2009, 06:34 »
0
Let's be honest here, there are very very few players prepared to shell out big bucks for another portfolia not of their own making. The majority of microstockers haven't a bean for starters and secondly they're too busy ripping off each others best sellers in a desperate attempt to bolster their earnings. Any discussion of this nature is just pie in the sky and wishful thinking so enough already.

« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2009, 07:36 »
0
guys i have another thing to ask, how much would you put in price (per image) if you're gonna produce a new image to sell to other contributor (ofcourse please also give estimations if you shoot plain photo, digitally composited photo, and graphic illustrations), let's assume we dont have to pay models or travelling across the country

recently i found this kind of service offer on some forum with various prices.


Microbius

« Reply #27 on: January 14, 2009, 07:44 »
0
I alluded to this in my in my PM to you. If I was producing an image for with an exclusive unlimited license or selling on the rights to an individual image in their entirety to a designer the charge would be a hell of a lot more than 2-3 dollars. In fact 100x that at a minimum.
Which is why this is all so tricky, the price you can expect to sell  the business for is somehow less than that of its component parts (?)
« Last Edit: January 14, 2009, 07:46 by Microbius »

« Reply #28 on: January 14, 2009, 09:24 »
0
oops, sorry i missed that point on your last pm Microbius, i was a bit confused about being exclusive on certain microstock site. :) so, any suggestion about the pricing thing? (for new images to be produced)

RacePhoto

« Reply #29 on: January 14, 2009, 20:46 »
0
guys i have another thing to ask, how much would you put in price (per image) if you're gonna produce a new image to sell to other contributor (ofcourse please also give estimations if you shoot plain photo, digitally composited photo, and graphic illustrations), let's assume we dont have to pay models or travelling across the country

recently i found this kind of service offer on some forum with various prices.

You mean hired gun?  :D People pay you to shoot images for their collection? Interesting concept.

I suppose the good side is the shooter gets paid up front and the buyer takes the risk, but if there is potential for long term rewards, across multiple sites, then everyone wins.

My question would be, do the photos come with any guarantee? If someone is good enough to shoot for hire, why don't they just upload them on their own and take it too the bank. If the buyer puts it online and it never sells, then the seller really has a good deal.

I'd think that there needs to be some proof of the product, and exclusive content, to insure that the buyer doesn't just get cast offs and variations.

« Reply #30 on: January 14, 2009, 21:03 »
0
If someone is good enough to shoot for hire, why don't they just upload them on their own and take it too the bank. If the buyer puts it online and it never sells, then the seller really has a good deal.

Isn't that a question for any shooter who works for a stock "factory" ?  I wonder too...

avava

« Reply #31 on: January 15, 2009, 01:58 »
0
Hi RacePhoto,

 Say someone came to you and offers $500 dollars an image for 1000 images of a certain quality and style that you could produce in a reasonably short amount of time for a low cost. 500K that would finance your company for the next couple of years. You might consider that making sense if you had no working capital. Don't get me wrong I am not a big work for hire guy but I think sometimes life presents situations or opportunities where you need the payoff right away. Just one example.

Best,
AVAVA

« Reply #32 on: January 15, 2009, 02:52 »
0
Sorry, mantonino, but *yes way*. Like ^^^^Freezingpictures said, there are a lot of people here who's portfolio earns much, much more than $3-8 per image in one year, let alone three.

Yeah, there are definitely contributors that's true for, I suppose.  Obviously people are interested in selling their collections as this comes up from time to time.  The reason remains the same - buyer expectations for what they'd pay and seller expectations for what they'd take are obviously *not* on the same page.

« Reply #33 on: January 15, 2009, 07:31 »
0
...My question would be, do the photos come with any guarantee? If someone is good enough to shoot for hire, why don't they just upload them on their own and take it too the bank. If the buyer puts it online and it never sells, then the seller really has a good deal.

Perhaps one of the guarantees should be given is minimum rate of approval on certain ms site, but surely it can't be used as earning guarantee.. :)

I guess some contributors would do this for fast money or urgent reasons (like me), one might sell  the ports/service on half market price if he/she needs money for family medication, etc..

btw, is this 'hired gun' method comply with ms terms??

« Reply #34 on: January 15, 2009, 07:48 »
0
Isn't that a question for any shooter who works for a stock "factory" ?  I wonder too...

i think it's about the "risk averse" vs "risk taker" type of guy sjlocke, some photographers might feel safe working as employee so they get paid regularly to support their living cost, meanwhile others willing to take some risks for higher income opportunity (and freedom)

and surely it's also about entrepreneurship things.. i have a friend with master degree that swore that he'll never work to any company as employee :D (and currently he's running a successful spa for men)
« Last Edit: January 15, 2009, 07:54 by Brentw »

avava

« Reply #35 on: January 17, 2009, 16:14 »
0
I agree BrentW,

 Ryan Mcvay has been a staff photographer for Getty for about 12 years now, look his name up on Getty. His name is attached to the images but they belong completely to Getty he holds no copyright and receives no commission. He gets a salary not even a percentage. Ryan used to be a student in one of my classes years ago before he went to work for Getty always a great guy and very talented. I have asked him since. Getty has 23,000 images on their site shot by you doesn't it bother you to give up all that commission for just a salary. He just likes to go to work shoot and tend to his personal life he doesn't want to run a business. The world is full of all kinds. Ryan is a great guy and a great shooter just check out his diversity on Getty but for him the no headache is the part he likes the most I think. Everyone is wired a bit differently.

Best,
AVAVA

RacePhoto

« Reply #36 on: January 17, 2009, 17:16 »
0
Hi RacePhoto,

 Say someone came to you and offers $500 dollars an image for 1000 images of a certain quality and style that you could produce in a reasonably short amount of time for a low cost. 500K that would finance your company for the next couple of years. You might consider that making sense if you had no working capital. Don't get me wrong I am not a big work for hire guy but I think sometimes life presents situations or opportunities where you need the payoff right away. Just one example.

Best,
AVAVA

Yes you are dreaming. $500 an image for 1000 images. Someone who has $500,000 wants to make money on Micro? Doesn't matter that they could make more just putting the money in a low interest account of some sort. If I got this offer as a photographer, I'm be leaping out of my jeans and renting the equipment and studio space.

Lets try something more realistic. Someone says, I'll pay you $500 for 100 images, which will take at least two years to pay back the original investment and start making a profit. A realistic RPI for 100 images is going to be under 50c a month.

When people come up with these ideas, they need to look at both sides. What if you were the buyer, making the investment? How much would you really be willing to pay. How long would it take to amortize that investment and what additional expenses are involved before get your money back. How risky is the market? What kind of guarantee is there that the photos will be accepted? I'd specify that all 100 photos must be accepted at, at least one site and an average of 95% acceptance across the top seven sites.

A good selling point for a seller might be, name a price and write a contract that says the buyer will get back the original investment in two years, or the seller will refund the difference. Now everyone is happy.

Heck, I'll give you 100 RF stock photos for $100, tomorrow. Limited only by the guarantee that all have at one time been accepted on a MicroStock site in the past two years. Want to buy them? Buck a photo, that must be a good deal?

Back to the real reason for writing this. Any time you get into dealing, you need to look at both sides.

You walk into a coin shop and say to the owner: "What's a 1909 S-VDB worth?" He says, "Are you buying or selling?"  ;D


avava

« Reply #37 on: January 17, 2009, 19:22 »
0
Hi RacePhoto,

 I thought you were asking about buy outs for stock in general not just Micro buy outs, sorry. No you won't get that in Micro but I have done deals for higher prices than that in Macro RF. They aren't around anymore but just two years ago I did a contract buyout that was well over $700 an image and took a few months to do. We only made it to 750 images but these sales do happen if you can produce the right content. Not at all trying to brag just trying to share information from personal experience, these deals have taken place on numerous occasions for many Macro shooters.

Best,
AVAVA
« Last Edit: January 17, 2009, 19:31 by avava »

RacePhoto

« Reply #38 on: January 17, 2009, 22:03 »
0
Hi RacePhoto,

 I thought you were asking about buy outs for stock in general not just Micro buy outs, sorry. No you won't get that in Micro but I have done deals for higher prices than that in Macro RF. They aren't around anymore but just two years ago I did a contract buyout that was well over $700 an image and took a few months to do. We only made it to 750 images but these sales do happen if you can produce the right content. Not at all trying to brag just trying to share information from personal experience, these deals have taken place on numerous occasions for many Macro shooters.

Best,
AVAVA

Sounds like a good deal. I think you are correct, that in the past, these may have been favorable deals. We both recognize that with the market changing and the world economy uncertain, we won't be seeing deals like this for a few years. Yes, it was about a micro collection, unless I was the one who was wrong. Whole different ball game.

OP says this: (perhaps including your all ms accounts) which led me to believe he was talking Micro on this site.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2009, 22:06 by RacePhoto »

avava

« Reply #39 on: January 17, 2009, 22:34 »
0
Hi Race,

 I don't know if anyone is buying Micro work yet but I imagine wholly owned buy out work will become a large part of the playing  field over the future of Micro. That would be my geusstimate but I imagine it would be for quality imagery that can be produced cheap and sold cheap, and I mean cheap. Then they move it to the top of their search engines and buy buy sales returns for the regular image providers. Greed is often the killer of a great idea. But no one would ever think of doing that to it's photographers. ;D

Best,
AVAVA

« Reply #40 on: January 18, 2009, 17:39 »
0
The value of the portfolio is whatever someone is willing to pay for it. There are lots of formulas you might use for say, insurance. But the reality is finding someone who wants to buy it, and how much they are willing to pay.

ironarrow

« Reply #41 on: January 18, 2009, 23:18 »
0




I'd pay $1-$3 per image for every image someone had or $3-8 per image if I got to select them.  There's *no way* EVERY single image of someone's is going to make more than that in the next 3 years.  The difference between buyer expectations and seller expectations is why it never happens.

Those numbers may be ok for you.. My best selling image made me $2000 for the first 6 months and still counting.. What do you say for that? Shall I count it as 1 single image and sell it for $10?  ;D That isn't even what it makes in a day..
« Last Edit: January 18, 2009, 23:21 by ironarrow »

RacePhoto

« Reply #42 on: January 19, 2009, 14:53 »
0




I'd pay $1-$3 per image for every image someone had or $3-8 per image if I got to select them.  There's *no way* EVERY single image of someone's is going to make more than that in the next 3 years.  The difference between buyer expectations and seller expectations is why it never happens.

Those numbers may be ok for you.. My best selling image made me $2000 for the first 6 months and still counting.. What do you say for that? Shall I count it as 1 single image and sell it for $10?  ;D That isn't even what it makes in a day..

And I'll guess you have photos that have never sold and never will. That's why an average price is used.

You can't pick one good photo and sell the whole collection based on that. I sold one photo for $500+ last year, was used in at least four publications and a website. I had some $20 shots that were used in magazines. I have 1000 more that have never sold.

The buyer and seller would need to find a meeting point where both feel they are getting a fair deal, for the entire collection. The seller needs a good chunk of change, the buyer needs to have enough value to recover his expenses.

Back to what I said before. When it comes to a question of price and value... Are you buying or selling?  ;D

« Reply #43 on: January 22, 2009, 20:59 »
0
that's right racephoto, i found an illustration on istockphoto that already earned more than $5000 and it's not even one year old yet!  :D

« Reply #44 on: August 29, 2014, 17:25 »
0
Bumpity-bump.

I'm not sure if I should start a new topic or just use this one.

In any case, I'm wondering, given the current affairs in microstock, how would you value your portfolio if you had an interested party.

Let's say, to make calculations simple, that your portfolio earns 20000$ per year. At what price would you sell, what would you consider fair both to you and to the buyer?

Personally, I would not sell below 60000$, because I expect the portfolio to keep bringing in money for quite some time in the future. But, I might be wrong.

What are your thoughts?

Shelma1

« Reply #45 on: August 29, 2014, 19:43 »
+6
I think it's annoying to read a thread only to realize it's from 5 years ago.

« Reply #46 on: August 29, 2014, 20:03 »
+2
I think it's annoying to read a thread only to realize it's from 5 years ago.

Agreed.  A lot has changed since this thread, maybe worth a new thread.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #47 on: August 30, 2014, 02:40 »
0
If someone is good enough to shoot for hire, why don't they just upload them on their own and take it too the bank. If the buyer puts it online and it never sells, then the seller really has a good deal.

Isn't that a question for any shooter who works for a stock "factory" ?  I wonder too...

I've always assumed it's because they don't have the startup capital for a studio, equipment etc, or because the costs would be cheaper if a number of users shaaring facilities, though you could do the latter for rental. But then you get to higher targets more quickly as a team, on those agencies where that is relevant.

Dook

« Reply #48 on: August 30, 2014, 03:45 »
0
I think this thing with selling the portfolio to someone can't work. Try reuploading pictures to SS under different account and they'll block you. They run occasional checks of new uploads becaus of theft. Of course, maybe you'll explain to them the situation, but it's all too risky for such a big investment.
It was discussed before, but I'm not sure how it ecaxtly works, that you can change your personal account into company account. This way the portfolio changes the owner without the need to deactivate the pictures and reupload under different account.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
7779 Views
Last post October 05, 2006, 10:27
by CJPhoto
14 Replies
7349 Views
Last post April 21, 2008, 08:26
by Leo Blanchette
6 Replies
4576 Views
Last post January 26, 2009, 06:28
by vlad_the_imp
19 Replies
8542 Views
Last post May 19, 2009, 18:57
by PeterChigmaroff
3 Replies
1883 Views
Last post October 22, 2015, 10:36
by melis82

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle