Reasons to dislike Royalty Free licensing #5
,741: Here's a photo I took in a San Francisco diner a few years ago (Lori's Diner on Market St., if you must know). Last year Getty Images got round to licensing it, and put it up for sale as a 'royalty free' image. No problem with me so far, if a sale is for 'end use' and the image is not sold on further. But for the last couple of months this photo has been bought on a monthly basis by Fine Art America, who pay Getty $78 each time, with the creator getting 20% (in this case $15). Fine Art America then put the image up for sale on their website
in several formats, the most expensive of which is an acrylic print going for $90 ...and I get precisely 0% on any further sale of my image. I know plenty of stories like this, some of which have the 'royalty free' photographer/artist missing out on substantial sums of money that would feed their families for years. AFAIK there's nothing illegal in what's being done, but can I just say, IT SUCKS.
Tags: getty, lives of photographs, photography