In many agencies, photography forums, magazines I have seen a lot of people argue about the extended licenses available in the microstock industry. The licenses grant the rights to the buyer to modify the image they bought and resell it as their product (images printed on t-shirts,mugs,magazines,etc) through any means of sale.
Many photographers and designers believe that this is a big loss considering the efforts put in making that image against the price they receive for it. The worst part is about someone else earning more than the contributor himself/herself. While some contributors sell their images through these extended licenses, others keep themselves away from such sales to see that they are paid for their efforts properly.
I have some views about this situation. I totally believe that the pricing for such licenses might be low, but considering a portfolio of 1500 I feel it’s a good bargain. I am not a big-time photographer with great camera and equipment. I have no studio of mine. I agree that I just don’t click for leisure, I might be shooting for a good sale but then still I am not still having the status of a photographer who can demand a high price.
Considering 1500 images one can’t be sure of the sale of each and every image. Again, if they do sale, will they end up selling once for $1 RF license or extended one? I never know. The image being sold for an extended license might be something I end up getting which I would have never earned otherwise. In no way is anyone selling their rights exclusively for that price so why worry? You can still reuse the image elsewhere or simply delete it after such a sale. I feel it’s a bonus we earn through such sales.
The image lying in my photo album or a CD without any earnings or lying unseen for years is more scary thought for me.