Sentences like this can be confusing for someone not in the industry. "microstock" typically is licensed with a royalty free licensing contract, much like traditionally priced "macrostock". So, there is no "micro vs. RF" – there is content licensed with a royalty free licensing agreement at various pricepoints.

Intellectual property has been questioned for centuries, digital technology simply exposed it. In my opinion, stock agencies need to drastically rethink what is they are actually selling, and how long they can actually sell it for.

I'm not against stock or trying to negotiate private deals over who gets an image (Ie. RM content), but I just wish stock agencies would wake up to reality a bit more and stop trying to rely on copyright laws and government in general to solve their problems, some of which they have actually created for themselves. As a producer for stock, copyright has actually made life more difficult and costly. Just listen to all the photographers on forums complaining about copyright absurdities like prohibited keywords and copyrighted shapes of items like lamps and bottles – it's madness really.

I think stock would still exist even with the abolition of IP laws – for sheer economic reasons, but I also think the industry would look very different .

Thanks a ton for taking the time to share your thoughts. I do think there is an education issue on the licensing side and your point about ignoring the fine print is spot on. It will be interesting to see if we end up coming full circle to a usage & performance-based licensing model as technology improves and more image usage moves online. I have a suspicion that we might but it will take some time. Was it your experience that RM licensing buyers we more conscientious about compliance? If so, I wonder how things will evolve as they do more and more of their purchasing in an online self-service model.

Regardless, thank you again for your comment.

Cheers,

Rahul

In my experience, customers 'buying' images with this type of license have the perception that they are doing just that: "buying". They think they can subscribe at a low low rate, gobble up images and do whatever they want with the images, forever. The inexperienced licensees ignore the fine print of the license terms, they don't have proper DAM systems and do whatever they want with the images. Yes, I'm from the old school of stock. And to me, the word "copyright" has gotten buried by the term "micro". The way images are purchased is the major flaw of this licensing model. I agree with your other comment "adapt or leave" but micro/RF shooters must keep this important fact in mind – how images are licensed, stored and re-used by licensees. If only suppliers could see the same stats as their agencies with regards to how many images do in fact rise to the top in relation to the number of images in the databases. IMHO, too many shooters get stuck at the bottom and the entire industry suffers while the brokers selling the 'stock' collect fat paycheks. You may think I'm grumpy. I'm not because I have moved on from the world of stock. I'm just sad to witness what the subscription licensing model is doing to the term copyright. It's quickly becoming "micro-copyright" for all suppliers. I'm going back to my burrow now.

I think you're spot on with your #JAST. I'm going to find that tweet right now. As far as RM, your prediction is duly noted.

Rahul