Straight Talk on Stock Licensing ModelsThis report, prepared by Betsy Reid, Executive Director, was adapted from the orginal SAA White Paper: Understanding Stock Licensing Models, for an article published in the ASMP Picture Professional, 2005.
Image creators are having a hard time these days, which is odd considering that everyone says the business of image licensing is about the images. Professional photographers feel increasing pressure to diversify their business opportunities, and many consider stock as a way to do so. The decision to invest in building a stock career is a significant one, especially in the face of a tough, rapidly changing business climate. It is a difficult time for image creators to thrive.
Through my experiences with SAA, I see a highly independent profession that is made up of talented shooters from a range of backgrounds and specialties. They are quickly coming up to speed on digital technologies. They run their own small independent businesses. They join professional organizations for support in terms of education, networking, advocacy and community. SAA was borne out of the need to provide a resource dedicated to the interests of stock photographers.
They are working within a business transformed by corporate methods and values. They struggle with accepting new terms of doing business that they perceive as leading to the commoditization of their creative work and detrimental to their careers as independent professionals. They balk at accepting a minority share of revenues from the licensing of their images. Their concerns are rational, thoughtful and commendable.
SAA recognizes the urgent need to expand industry-wide understanding about how stock licensing models work for the creators, users and distributors of images.
We all need to be talking and engaging constructively to address the issues that impact our industry. We must seek to make informed business decisions about how to license images, and also consider the impact of these decisions on the business on which we depend. SAA's White Paper and this article are two steps to encourage a dialogue. There is much information and insight that needs to be shared and I offer this as a start.
Stock Licensing Models Defined
There are fundamentally two approaches to how stock images are licensed: "license by USE" and "license by UNIT."
Rights Managed (RM) is the dominant "license by use" model, basing license fees on the particulars of that use. The "managed" aspect of RM means that there is a finite limited use. Since all uses are known, clients can identify past or current competitive uses of an image and will have the possibility of licensing an RM image with some degree of exclusivity.
Rights Protected (RP) is a more stringent variation, in which there is built into the license some level of exclusivity or competitive conflict avoidance. The terms RM and RP have been used interchangeably for some time now.
In contrast, Royalty Free (RF) is a license based on UNITS and the RF license fee is essentially perceived as a standardized "purchase price" for that unit. A unit could be a single image (priced by file size), a collection of images (priced by CD or "virtual" CD) or a subscription allowing access to a collection of images (priced by time period). The terms of an RF license grant clients virtually unlimited rights. The same image can be used by any company for any number of uses with few restrictions.
It's fair to say that RF is a "sore subject" within the stock community and has spurred such heated debate because most stock photographers - along with many other industry professionals - are uncomfortable on some level with the RF business model.
A Very Brief History
"License by use" was the original stock licensing model. Since it was consistent with the traditional pricing structure and terms of assignment photography, this approach was universally understood and accepted by all parties - photographers, distributors, picture buyers and clients.
Introduced in the early 1990s by stock distributors, RF introduced the concept of a "license by unit" model. By standardizing unit pricing and by first exploiting the economies of digital search & delivery, RF was quickly adapted by clients as an amazing bargain for acquiring images.
Despite the discomfort of many distributors, the competitive pressure they felt to meet growing client demand for RF - and the impact it was having on their core RM businesses - resulted in nearly every established stock company launching an RF division. They were joined by new companies who invested primarily in the RF business. It's fair to say that the "license by use" model was moved to the backseat while stock distributors refocused their resources on RF and, as a consequence, made possible the unimpeded encroachment of RF on RM.
In less than a decade, stock irrevocably changed from a world of printed catalogs and analog files to an Internet marketplace with two directly competing licensing models, both widely used. Today, it is estimated that RF accounts for the larger share of licensing volume while RM continues to generate the larger share of revenues. Today, variations and hybrids are appearing which combine these models and invent new ones. The evolution of stock licensing models continues as distributors fight for market share by seeking to appeal to clients with an even bigger bargain or a better offer.
The RF Shock Wave
The introduction of RF sent a shock wave through the first generation of stock photographers who were accustomed to a business of exclusive relationships with their stock "agents" and RM licensing terms. They watched as the industry embraced this new licensing model that not only commoditized images by selling them as "units" for low prices, but also offered the image creators a dramatically reduced share of the revenues than the RM model.
Even so, success stories circulated about some photographers who profited from RF, especially when it was first introduced and clients snapped up the first generations of RF product. As the business grew, competition greatly intensified, productions became more expensive, and the compensation offered to photographers declined.
Today, most stock photographers continue to engage in RM licensing. Others engage in RF, and many more have considered it but have serious reservations about doing so. They question the RF business proposition to photographers, and how a decision to engage in RF might impact their RM business and the industry in general.
They feel the pressure from many fronts. They are being urged to shoot RF, to submit images that do not make the RM "cut" for RF, or to move RM images already online but not selling well into RF. The argument being that it's better to make something from your images (on any terms), than get nothing at all.
It presents a conundrum for photographers who value the "license by use" model. Is it smarter to engage in RF or not? A first step is to consider what might give pause, by looking critically at the impact of RF on the stock industry up to now and into the future.
Lost Customers, Lost Revenues
Current stock industry revenues are estimated to be between 1.5 and 2 billion dollars a year and have flattened out in the past few years after a period of growth. There is compelling evidence to suggest that RF is responsible for diminishing the potential revenues to be made through image licensing by a significant amount. RF has not only deflated the fees paid per license, it has given away potential for future licensing revenue as well. Another source of lost revenues is the high level of unauthorized uses suspected for RF images, a result of the mis-perception by clients that RF is a carte blanche license.
Image Overload
The sheer volume of RF content is dominating image searches. In addition, the same images are everywhere, as many RF collections are represented on over a hundred distribution channels. In contrast, RM images have far more limited distribution. New RF images continue to flood the marketplace, due to aggressive production and relatively loose editing standards. Yet, the emphasis on developing "top volume" and "creatively edgy" content leaves many client needs unmet.
Despite the glut of RF images everywhere, Right Managed continues to claim a significant segment of the market and maintains strong appeal among discriminating image buyers. Industry surveys confirm that clients continue to perceive RM as offering the "freshest" images and they associate it with the highest quality, confirming that there continues to be high value associated with RM licensing model.
Conflicting Uses
Clients who license RF images sometimes get stung by competitive and embarrassing usage conflicts. A recent example is two major computer companies using similar RF images for their Back-to-School promotions. The Inquirer headline read:
"This young lady going back to college appears to have a bit of trouble deciding whether she wants a Gateway or a Dell PC.
Another kind of conflict arises from the particular appeal of RF images to clients promoting "sensitive" products, as in the following case in which the billion-dollar software company licensed the same image as the marketer of erection-enhancement tablets. The Cincinnati Enquirer reported:
"The black-suited man in the print ad wears a wide, satisfied smile. But is he selling computer software - or a sexual aid? Actually, both."
As more cases of conflicts arise, we expect client frustrations to increase. The ease of RF unit pricing is hardly sufficient incentive to gamble with the potential consequences of conflicting uses by anyone else who can pay a few hundred dollars for an image, let alone a chief competitor.
Pricing for the Digital Age
According to the logic of RF pricing, an image used in print should cost a lot more than an image used electronically. So, the RF license for a textbook insert costs more than an Internet home page, and a single POS poster costs more than a web banner ad.
The disconnect between price and use in RF licensing becomes an increasing concern as the media mix shifts away from print and more into electronic media. With the spreading use of broadband along with the growth of online advertising (expected to double in the next five years) and emerging new digital media, there will be increasing demand for images in smaller file sizes.
By discounting electronic media uses, RF has trapped the industry into a pricing equation that undervalues licenses for the growth sector of the market, a serious issue looking forward that needs to be addressed for the health of the industry.
Devaluation of Images
RF has also dramatically affected how clients value images. Giving away virtually unlimited rights for anywhere from a few dollars to a few hundred dollars diminishes both the financial and creative value of professionally created images for clients. Today, more assignment photographers are finding that clients working with them increasingly question the costs associated with producing an image, and more and more are pressuring for lower fees and more rights in commissioned work.
Rock-Bottom Royalties
A shock to most photographers even today is that RF contracts offer them such low royalties, usually netting them TEN PERCENT or less of total licensing revenues. The published royalty rate in an RF contract may read up to 25 percent, but that does not figure in the standard "distributor's cut" that might be 60 percent or more off the top of each license fee paid. Nearly all RF transactions involve two middlemen - a brand company and a distributor - who take a combined share of 90 percent of the revenues, so what's left for the photographer is usually 10 percent or less.
Consider a quick comparison between the net revenues that a photographer will receive from an RF versus an RM image. Looking at single image prices only, it's reasonable to estimate that an average RF license fee is less than $200, whereas the average RM license fee is over $500. Assuming the photographer nets 10-15 percent from RF license and 30-40 percent from an RM license, the RF image would need to be licensed 5 to 10 times more often than the RM image for the photographer to net the same amount.
A commonly heard rationale for the minimal royalties offered to photographers is that RF has higher "marketing costs" than RM. Another common claim to photographers is that the volume of RF sales offsets the lower share paid to them. In short, it appears the only reason why photographers get an average of 10 percent of RF license fees is because the deal was accepted by enough photographers to make it stick.
The Top of the Pyramid
Can RF be profitable for a photographer? The answer is yes, for a relatively small group of high-volume production-oriented stock photographers. The RF "superstars" tend to have staff support and extensive archives. They were in an ideal position to profit from RF by leveraging their production experience and financial success from already prosperous RM careers. Their success stories are impressive, but most photographers today cannot easily replicate their business models.
Pressure Tactics
While it's hard for photographers to make a balanced assessment of the RF profit equation, the squeeze has definitely been on photographers from a number of fronts. Content developers and distributors, along with a few highly successful RF photographers and industry pundits, are spinning variations of the same message: RF is an opportunity to seize or lose. Here's how one online stock advisor offers a sound put-down to anyone resisting the RF offer:
"The old-timers would have you believe that choosing whether or not to produce RF is a moral issue...IT'S NOT...it's a BUSINESS decision.... It ain't going away, and while the dinosaurs who refuse to change with the times keep their heads buried in the sand, I personally know of several photographers who are laughing at them all the way to the bank."
This kind of pressure to move into RF is dismissive of the hard facts and concerns such as those addressed here and raised by respected industry professionals and trade organizations who are dedicated to the best interests of photographers. Moreover, it has had a detrimental (and divisive) effect on the community of professional photographers who are facing numerous challenges in their businesses.
Assessing the RF Deal
Many successful RM shooters have made the decision against shooting RF - regardless of income potential and pressure to engage - because they object to the terms of the business model. Some have been fortunate as they are in a financial position that makes this decision easier to make. However, to a student or new photographer with minimal cash flow, it's hard to walk away from anyone offering an entrée to the stock business, regardless of the terms.
RF brands continue to cut costs by reducing the fees, expenses and percentage terms offered to photographers. Some have hired staff shooters to develop image inventories on a work-for-hire or minimal royalty basis. As the wholly owned RF content continues to grow, it will increasingly dominate the inventory.
With the "easy money" days of RF production long past, photographers considering the RF proposition are looking at a very different profit equation. Fewer images are accepted, production costs are rising, competition has intensified, and the terms of the deal are set up to maximize the payout down the road for the brands and the distributors and not for the photographers.
As for RM...
The good news is that RM licensing continues to offer a viable business opportunity for stock photographers. RM licenses continue to command significantly higher license fees, and royalties to the photographers. RM photographers can expect a significantly higher share of licensing revenues with a range of 40-65 percent across the industry, though down as low as 25 percent if a sub-distributor also takes a share.
Progress has been made on the distributor side to streamline the RM licensing process through simplified online pricing calculators and options for "packaged" uses. An inter-organizational coalition has come together to support an important new industry initiative called PLUS, the Picture Universal Licensing System that is developing a standardized licensing vocabulary, another step towards simplifying the online purchasing possibilities for buyers.
More education efforts are needed to promote clearer understanding of licensing terms. Increased awareness among clients will illustrate that a distinct benefit of a RM license is the ability to provide them with information on competitive uses, the option for a degree of exclusivity, as well as the value of "sensitive use" restrictions. And RM distributors need to uphold high standards of usage tracking to leverage a core asset of their RM businesses.
In Closing
We've looked at the stock licensing models of today. It would appear that there is plenty of room for improvement.
The challenge is how can stock licensing models evolve to do a better job of meeting the needs of all parties involved in the transaction. "Better" cannot just mean bigger profit margins for distributors or lower prices for clients. It must also mean a fair deal for image creators.
Stock is no longer a boom market for photographers, but it can provide substantial income to those who find a way to successfully engage, especially as part of a diversified business plan. If the business of stock is indeed all about the images, then it must be fairly focused on those who create the images.
SAA Recommendations to Congress
We urge Congress to amend this draft legislation to expand on the new ideas they have put forth which seek to minimize potential abuse, and better balance the needs of those who legitimately seek orphan works exemptions while better serving those who seek protection of their copyrights.
Specifically, we propose the following:
Regarding the Provision for Certified Private Searchable Databases:
1. Before any Orphan Works law goes into effect for visual works, there be at least two certified searchable databases in service (removing the alternative effective date of Jan 2013)
2. Best practices specified by the Copyright Office would require anyone seeking the Orphan Works exemption to search both databases should they fail to find the copyright owner in one search.
3. At least one of these databases allows copyright holders to submit works without fee or charge. (The financial support for such a system should come from the prospective users of the works, and not from the artists whose copyrights are being challenged by the effects of this legislation.)
4. All images registered with the U.S. Copyright Office through their new online registration system be automatically added to the searchable databases upon upload, and that provisions be made for the transfer of all electronic deposits made to the Copyright Office to both databases.
5. New exemptions under this statute be available only for as long as the Copyright Office can continue to certify that such searchable databases are fully functional. If this ever ceases to be the case, then new Orphan Works exemptions would no longer be available.
Regarding the "Notice of Use" Provision:
1. There be a fee for filing a "Notice of Use."
2. A copy of each work be included in the "Notice of Use" filed by an infringer.
3. A "Notice of Use" be required to have specific detail not just "how" and images is to be used (e.g. "print," but exactly "where the image will be used, including name, date and location of publication.")
4. The archive of "Notices of Use" of claimed orphan works exemptions, containing the digital copies of the work used, be available to registered copyright holders so that they can perform a visual search for infringements of their images.
Regarding the Provision for Reasonable Use Fees:
1. The exemption for payment of reasonable use fees by nonprofit educational institutions, libraries or archives be removed. These entities are well accustomed to paying usual licensing fees and ought to continue to do so, just like other infringers, if the owner of an "orphan work" presents a legitimate request.Regarding Best Practices
Regarding Best Practices:
We urge that the Copyright Office commit to work closely with photography and other visual arts professional associations, and industry leaders from across the image licensing community, to ensure that the documented "best practices" for searching for copyright owners be sufficiently stringent and comprehensive that, while allowing for legitimate searches, they prevent idle or casual searches which would abuse the system.
We also urge a public commitment by stock photography agencies, particularly members of PACA, BAPLA and other industry groups, to ensure that their entire collections at all times be searchable in Copyright Office certified databases.
SAA is part of the Imagery Alliance, an ad hoc group of Visual Artists associations concerned about the protection of copyright. The alliance provides a forum for sharing information and strategy concerning Orphan Works and other legislative issues. There's been a broad range of opinions on the current bills expressed so far, and we can expect more views aired in the days to come.
Moving Toward an Orphan Works Bill that Better Protects our Copyrights
Compared to the previous Orphan Works bill, the current version contains several new elements that seek to minimize potential abuse. Specifically, the current bill requires anyone seeking an orphan works exemption to:
1. Document a search according to Best Practices prescribed by the Copyright Office;
2. File a Notice of Use with the Copyright Office; and
3. Agree to, and actually pay, a Reasonable Fee should the author later be found. If not, they will have no recourse to an "orphan works" claim.
These new "hurdles" to obtaining orphan works status for any use should eliminate widespread and easy access to orphans by users, which would surely have occurred with the original version. Even so, the new version continues to put a heavy burden on copyright holders to ensure that they can be found.
The bill provides that the Copyright Office maintain Statements of Best Practices which will define what materials and standards constitute a "reasonable and diligent search." Currently the only way that a potential user can reliably identify an image without attribution is to conduct a visual search for the image using newly available pattern-matching technology AND a comprehensive database of images. The technology exists to do so, and one such technology provider, PicScout spoke before the Congressional sub-committee at the March Hearing giving testimony to explain how it works.
Clearly the power of this advanced visual search technology made an impression on the committee, as the House version of the bill calls for the formation of private searchable databases (a.k.a. image registries) and their certification by the Copyright Office. It stipulates that such databases must contain the author's name and contact info for author, title of work, and copy of the visual work. A list of certified databases would be made available to the public its use would be part of what would be considered a reasonable and diligent search.
For visual works such as photos, the effective date of this law would be delayed until the Copyright Office has certified at least two such databases that are available to the public or by Jan 1, 2013 (whichever comes first).
This bill leans heavily on the creation and maintenance of private searchable databases as the primary mechanisms for linking potential users and copyright owners. However, it makes no firm assurance that private databases will actually be developed or that they will endure. Moreover, the value of such databases is limited, unless they comprise a comprehensive collection of all visual works. Only then will they truly provide a means to identify sought-after copyright owners. There are billions of copyrighted visual works produced in the U.S. every year - from the works of commercial photographers to portrait, wedding, and amateur photographers, plus illustrations, sculptures, painting, textiles, films, animations, clothing patterns, wallpaper, logos, fonts and others.
Any artist who does not register every work with a private searchable database risks their work being used under an "orphan works" exemption. And since there is no constraint on costs that might be involved by a private sector supplier of such services, he bill provides no assurance that copyright holders could afford to participate.
In summary, we see a number of shortcomings with the current provision regarding private searchable databases:
1. If no private databases are developed and certified, the law still goes into effect Jan 2013.
2. It is possible that no such databases would actually by developed and certified; and even if they are, at any time in the future, such services may no longer be in business.
2. There is no stipulation about how these services would work. There is no constraint on costs that might inhibit the participation of copyright holder.
3. The system puts a heavy burden on artists who do not have digitized visual works.
Why Visual Works are Vulnerable to being Orphaned
Orphan Works legislation comes at a time when there is already daunting pressure on artists, as copyright holders, to protect their intellectual property due to the digitization and online distribution of their images.
In the digital world, the only reliable way at present to identify the source of a digital image is to examine metadata embedded in the image file. When this is the case, the copyright holder can readily be determined and a prospective user can use the embedded contact information to secure a legitimate license for use of the image.
Adjacent credit lines on a web page are not reliable, since few images are published with accurate copyright attribution and even so, the image can easily be removed from the location where the identifying details can be found.
The problem is that copyright owners have little control over what happens to their image files once they leave their desktop. Once forwarded to stock image distributors and end users, the files are subject to all manner of changes that result in the loss of this critical identifying information.
Absent such identifications, this legislation will surely tempt commercial and editorial users to file for "orphan works" status, even for what is clearly a contemporary image that they sourced online or even from their own archives.
SAA's ongoing work to understand current metadata practices across the image licensing community makes clear that even with the best efforts of artists, it is commonplace that images have no identifying information. Metadata is often inadvertently overwritten and stripped, and images easily copied and redistributed without it, making the problem worse.
SAA is now in the process of conducting an extensive MetaSurvey of stock images, which are represent the most widely copied and distributed images in the marketplace. Our early findings indicate that most have inadequate identifying information embedded in the image files.
This lack of reliable attribution, along with an Internet culture of disregard for the rights of copyright holders, results in rampant Internet infringements of digital images. Because they are prominently featured in online databases, professional stock images are particularly vulnerable to such abuse. SAA, in partnership with PicScout, investigated this issue and reported on it in a recent SAA white paper , Infringements of Stock Images and Lost Revenues.
SAA's Metadata Manifesto also speaks specifically to this problem and urges industry-wide changes in workflow and practices, presenting specific action steps to do so.This document proposes as a strategy the development, promotion and widespread adoption of principles, standards and technology for image metadata use and preservation. The goal is to ensure that all visual works in digital form can be readily identified, with all relevant descriptive data, and their owners located.
This call to action is now more urgent than ever.
A Brief History of Orphan Works
In January 2006, the U.S. Copyright Office presented to Congress their Report on Orphan Works, detailing issues relating to the use of copyrighted works whose owners may be impossible to identify and locate. The concern had been raised primarily by museums and publishers that often held in their collections archival works for which they could not find the copyright holder. Their desire was to be able to publish such works without being subject to undue liability, if they had tried and truly been unable to find the copyright owner.
The Copyright Office report and recommendation to Congress led to the drafting of the Orphan Works Act of 2006. It provided a process for infringers to use “orphan works,” but was so far-reaching and loosely crafted that it would have made millions of legitimately copyrighted works subject to such uses with little recourse for the copyright holder.
A coalition of Visual Artists vigorously opposed the bill and it died in the Judiciary sub-committee later that year. The organized response and objections raised by associations and artists played a significant role in stopping that legislation. It was clear then, however, that the bill would return.
The political realities of today, and strength of the museum and publisher lobbies suggest it is inevitable that some form of Orphan Works legislation will eventually pass. The consequences will affect all artists, worldwide, who are involved in the global business of licensing their copyrighted works. Not only would an Orphan Works law change the nature of the U.S. market, but also will surely set a precedent and pressure for similar laws in other countries. Rumblings of “orphan works” type legislation have been heard in the U.K. as well, following a commissioned study called the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property published in November 2006.
The Orphan Works Act of 2008
After a reprieve of 18 months, Orphan Works is back and, once again, on a fast track. In March, the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property held Hearings, making clear that the wheels were again in motion, followed a month later by draft legislation from both the House and Senate.
House Bill : H.R. 5889, Orphan Works Act of 2008
Senate Bill : S.2913, Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008
As in 2006, these new bills strive to address the desire of publishers and museum owners, but in doing so, continue with the troubling consequence of legitimizing the use of copyrighted images without permission. It does however have some distinct improvements that suggest that this time, its drafters are attempting to address the issues raised by the creative community.
The concern of the Stock Artists Alliance, then and now, is that “orphan works” legislation must not endanger the copyright protections now guaranteed to artists. Any bill ought to be tightly and narrowly constrained to address only and specifically the issue of making archival works accessible to museums, libraries, educational publishers, and like entities. These are institutions which are already accustomed to paying appropriate licensing fees and which would readily do so if and when they could locate the copyright owner. Any bill which allows or encourages any broader use – particularly with an intent to avoid the proper protection of copyright and paying of licensing fees – runs counter to the original intent of the Copyright Law which is the protection of the economic interests of creators.
From this point of view, it is unfortunate that the proposed legislation includes several elements that invite abuse. As before, there's no distinction made between non-profit users (such as museums) and commercial users (like advertisers and agencies). Any kind of user – from a university archive to a major publisher to an ad agency for a Fortune 500 company – can file for an Orphan Works exemption to use an image. Furthermore, the exemption is not restricted to historical or archival works but could in fact be claimed for any contemporary online imagery, including the most recent editorial or advertising images.
We therefore believe that the permissions granted in the new bills would doubtless increase the potential for increased unauthorized use of images (already a huge problem for our industry) through widespread claims of “orphan works” protection. This adds yet another challenge to artists who are already struggling to protect their copyrights, with the unfortunate result being less recourse for artists against infringers.
Read the Manifesto here or Download the PDF
A Metadata Manifesto
A proposal from the Stock Artists Alliance for the adoption of guiding principles, standards and technology to promote image metadata use.
Version 1.0 / July 2006
Photographers, illustrators, publishers, advertisers, designers, art directors, picture editors, librarians and curators all share this same problem: struggling to track rapidly expanding collections of image assets.
In a world of desktops increasingly crowded with digital files, old methodology persists. Folders of digital images are "filed" while information about the images -- creator, caption and rights data -- often is available only from a separate database, notebook, or CD jacket.
The only link between the image and this data is a file name and where that file is stored. Unfortunately, this link is easily severed when file names get altered, files get relocated, copies are made and disseminated. Meanwhile, image information gets left behind.
Without effective systems in place for identifying and managing digital assets, everyone working with digital images is adversely affected. Resources are wasted, opportunities are lost, liability increases and intellectual property rights are eroded.
The volume of digital files challenges publishers who need to manage and access them. Busy designers and art directors download preview images to their desktops, only to find weeks or months later they cannot identify the source. Librarians and curators -- charged with making more cultural resources available to the public -- are already overburdened managing their legacy analog material. Now, they must cope with rapidly expanding digital assets as well.
Lack of information about an image file can delay projects, necessitating additional research to establish licensing rights, obtain clearances, and confirm caption details. This in turn has contributed to the growing problem of misuse of images, whether through error or by intent. Without proper licensing or permissions, users infringe copyright and expose themselves to liability.
The pressures on image creators-as copyright holders-to protect their intellectual property has intensified since the digitalization and online distribution of their images. If their images cannot be properly identified, they suffer from lost revenues due to missed licensing opportunities. Add to this the challenge posed by proposed changes in U.S. Copyright Law. If "orphan works" legislation passes as drafted, it would permit use of their images without a license in the event the owner cannot be located.
Industry wide adoption of metadata is the key to addressing these challenges. Yet today, it is underused and under-supported. What's missing is an adherence to standards and technology solutions that support metadata use and preservation.
Image creators need to commit to embedding metadata as they move rapidly to an all-digital workflow. Those at the forefront have recognized the value of metadata to better protect their intellectual property. A recent Stock Artists Alliance member survey of nearly 400 active stock photographers found that a majority currently embed metadata in their image files. 9 in 10 include a copyright notice, 8 in 10 include creator contact information, and 7 in 10 include a unique image identifier, title, caption and keywords.
