Selling exclusive rights to your images

<p>I found a stock house who requires you to sell the copyright to the buyer who takes ownership of your image. They do this for a payment of 40% of $500 - $800. Seems a bit skimpy to me. Just wondering what others thought of this.</p>

<p><strong>What does selling a NoEquivalent image mean?</strong><br>

Selling an image through NoEquivalent is about selling a unique image and to sell a unique image there are a few steps:<br>

Prior to posting your image you need to</p>

<ul>

<li>Own the image and hold all rights to it. (authorship, copyright, and privacy releases) </li>

<li>Be comfortable that you are in the possession of all the high resolution versions of the image. (Otherwise, the image might already not be unique) </li>

</ul>

<p>When posting the image you need to</p>

<ul>

<li>Have NoEquivalent be the exclusive marketer of the image. (You cannot sell a unique image through two channels. If somehow both sell, the image is not unique.) </li>

</ul>

<p>Once the image is sold, you need to</p>

<ul>

<li>Assign copyright, excluding claim of authorship, to the buyer. (Transferring the unique image) </li>

<li>Get rid of all high resolution copies of the image. (The buyer will now have the unique copy) </li>

<li>Promise not to author a similar work. (Completing your part in ensuring the sold image remains unique) </li>

</ul>

<p><strong>How much will I be paid?</strong><br>

Each image sells for somewhere between $500 and $800 US, with the artist controlling the price within this range. At sale, the artist receives 40% of the image price. <br /><br />As artists prove themselves to be able to sell at these prices then the upper end of this band increases, allowing them to price their images higher. In addition, these artists receive the flexibility to custom price some of their images.</p>

<p>a fool and his property are soon parted. But honestly, depending on the uniqueness or lack thereof of individual images this may or may not be a good price.</p>

<p>What stock house is this? I have hundreds of photos I would part with for that kind of money ;)-<br>

Now, the pictures I consider actually good are a different story...</p>

<p>I really don't think the math adds up. Most people don't need exclusive rights let alone the actual ownership of the copyright. People often want to own the rights to the images either because they don't know what they need or they don't want to be bothered to renegotiate for new use, but I've found they don't want to pay for it. Ellis is right, for some images this is a good price—non-original, not particularly timely, or poorly executed images images for instance—but from the buyer's perspective the price is too high for anything that's not particularly good. What good is the exclusive right to something mediocre? It's like saying I'm going to charge you twice as much for something subpar, but you'll have the original. On the other hand, from the photographers perspective the price it too low (way too low) for a buyout of a really good image. Remember too, they are not asking you to sell exclusive rights, they are asking you to sell the copyright, which means the new buyer can anything including relicensing the work to third parties. A good, unique, well-marketed image is the gift that keeps on giving—if you are a photographer it is your pension. </p>

<p>Their business concept is <a href="https://artist.noequivalent.com/concept">here</a> . I assume they've done their research and have a business plan that says this makes sense. It looks like it's full of pitfalls and a little questionable to me, but I'm not their target market either as a buyer or as an image maker.</p>

<p>Their site says nothing about how they are marketing, who their customers are, what experience they have representing and selling photos. The link to "their business concept" gives no idea how they will be successful selling. The prices aren't bad if you expect to only have one buyer, which I think a lot of people do, but how will they find that buyer?</p>

<p>There's one born every minute, and I'm sure despite a surge of reasonable arguments against the idea, there will be a line of photographer waiting to get in. Transferring the copyright to an image should be worth thousands, but we're already seen droves of people happy to accept lower & lower value. IMHO</p>

<p>"I found a stock house who requires you to sell the copyright to the buyer who takes ownership of your image. They do this for a payment of 40% of $500 - $800. Seems a bit skimpy to me."</p>

<p>What you refer to is not the sale of exclusive rights. It is sale of all rights, including copyright and the right to relicense with no further compensation to the photographer. I have negotiated sales like this for as much as $125K and no less than $50K, so to say that $800 is a bit skimpy compensation is a profound understatement. Anyone willing to sell their work outright for so little is either a dilettante, highly naïve, or a fool. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but it is a fact. There is a reason this company thinks this model will work: they see a pool of amateurs looking for an ego boost, and potential clients who will see what an excellent deal they are getting.</p>