Rights managed liceses are ridiculously expensive, when you sell a rights managed licensed image to someone, are you saying that NO ONE else can purchase this image from you (as the licensor) during the term of the RM license?
Royalty free licences are WAY cheaper, is this because you can sell them to more than one purchaser at a time?
Or am I way off? There is no resource that full explains this!
2007-11-05 04:29:26 · 2 answers · asked by diana 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
Every few years a big company gets humiliated on a national ad campaign because they cheaped out and bought royalty free images rather than RM, when some competitor uses the exact same image in their ad. When you're paying big bucks for an advertising campaign, it pays to ensure that the images you are using won't pop up elsewhere and dilute the impact of your message.
With rights managed, you're paying for exclusivity. You're paying the photographer or image service NOT to sell rights to anyone else.
2007-11-05 06:59:25 · answer #1 · answered by Evan B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most royalty free collections I've seen are of much poorer quality than those requiring specific use licenses. These licences can be sold, by the owner, to as many people as want to purchase them. Just go to any of the stock photo sites to check out their price structures. You can just go to their cataloge, along with anyone else, and select any image and pay the required fee, tailored to your use. (usually in terms of the size of the image)
I'll bet that's the main reason for the price disparity.
2007-11-05 07:01:28 · answer #2 · answered by Vince M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋