Golf Shop

While RF opened excellent generic photography to graphic designers and publishers who normally could not afford top-level agency prices, it caused a clamor in the commercial stock photo arena. Photographers who expected to make a living from the images in their files feared and railed against RF.

After an uproar of several years, RF has not gone away, the world of commercial stock has accepted it and even in some areas profits from it, and is still adjusting to it. But there s one segment of the stock photography pie, as it turns out, that has not had to adjust, that Royalty-Free does not affect: editorial photobuyers who need exact content photos that

is, quality images that complement the subject matter of their publishing projects. Generic pictures simply don t do the job as well as specific-content RM (rights-managed) photos.

Good news. The sky has not fallen. Royalty-Free photos are out there, yes, and they sell from $1 to $50 on average (up to $500 in some cases), but they are not popular with our target market, the photobuyers and researchers at books, magazines, and any periodical or service that publishes specific-content material.

If you have entered the stock photography field as a supplier of commercial generic (all across-the-board) images, this article may not be of interest to you.

Then again, you may wish to discover more about that segment of stock

photography called editorial stock, where you produce photos in your select areas of interest (aviation, health, golf, education, environment, horse racing, etc.).

Recently I made a survey concerning Royalty-Free of the photobuyers who actively purchase photos through our network (PhotoDaily, PhotoLetter). More about that in a minute.

I was thinking the other day, Do major editorial markets use Royalty-Free photos? A good way to test this was to go right to the source. I picked out a few magazines from our magazine rack here at the farm. Here s what I found.

First of all, I found most of the magazines still use lots of art (illustrations) to get points across. Illustrators are alive and well. Not much

RF damage there.

Second, the magazines featured stories assigned to either staff photographers or freelancers. Assignment photography is still alive!

Third, the magazines I looked at exhibited that they were not comfortable using generic RF pictures. The few generic pictures I saw, looked like the $200 and up RF variety. How did I know they weren t $3 images? The models. They were pros, not the next-door neighbor. And the set-up and props. The stock ice cream, pie, or cake shots were professionally executed. Also, keep this in mind: large circulation magazines will use major stock agency pictures, whether the photos are RF or Managed-Rights, because the magazines are covered by the stock photo agency when it

comes to legal matters such as model and product releases and copyright issues.

The magazines I reviewed were Readers Digest, AARP Magazine, Mount Holyoke Alumnae Quarterly, National Geographic, and Smithsonian.

Keep in mind that I did not review any of the advertising photos in the periodicals. In general, most advertisers, who want top-of-the-line quality and need releases, shy away from using non-released RF pictures. Also, I did not review any popular books, textbooks or scientific volumes. They, too, shy away from generic RF pictures since their commitment is to provide highly specific information for their readers. RF won t do.

This issue of exclusivity is paramount. Book buyers and subscribers to magazines, like you and me, pay

for uniqueness. No publisher wants to be up-staged by a competitor using the same Royalty-Free photo in their pages, too.

TRY IT

Make this test for yourself. If you are an editorial photographer, tear out all the commercial ads in a magazine, any magazine. What s left are the editorial photos. You can usually tell a Royalty-Free photo when you see it. ( If it walks like a duck ) Depending on the periodical, you ll note the dearth of RF photos that are used.

Well, then, where are RF pictures used? The answer: in low-budget periodicals, brochures, books, regional, state, and local productions and publications, on websites, non-profit newsletters any place where duplication of

the same photo won t matter. RF has been a benefit to commercial entities that don t have budgets that can afford the highly professional photos licensed by major agencies. Royalty-Free also presents opportunities for part-time photographers to earn extra pocket money, thanks to volume sales and kinder standards.

NOT IN OUR INDUSTRY

Here are the results of our survey of 71 editorial photobuyers/photo researchers:

Do Editorial Photobuyers Use Royalty-Free Photos?

I rarely use Royalty-Free photos 42%

I occasionally use Royalty-Free photos 44%

I never use Royalty-Free photos 11%

I don t know what Royalty-Free photos are 3%

If you sometimes use Royalty-Free photos, what percent of your research efforts result in a Royalty-Free photo being

licensed as opposed to an RM (Rights Managed) photo?

% of Photobuyer Respondents Using Royalty-Free — Percentage of Royalty-Free Use

6% — 0%

51%* — 1% to 10%

27% — 10% to 25%

8% — 25% to 50%

4% — 50% to 75%

4%** — 75% to 100%

*Respondents that occasionally use Royalty-Free, use it only 1%-10% of the time.

**Only 4% of the respondents use Royalty-Free most of the time.

Rohn Engh is the best-selling author of Sell & ReSell Your Photos and [http://www.sellphotos.com] sellphotos.com He has produced a new eBook, How to Make the Marketable Photo. For more information and to receive a free eReport: 8

Steps to Becoming a Published Photographer, visit [http://www.sellphotos.com] http://www.sellphotos.com