Right, let’s leave image quality aside. As we can see, the image quality on microstocks is getting better all the time, because of two reasons:
– the more images a microstock agency get the higher are their quality requirement
– many amateur photographers who get their first bucks from microstock photo sites invest in better photographic equipment trying to earn more

So, do we compare apples and apples, comparing traditional rights managed photos and royalty free microstock images? Of course not, these are two different products. They can differ in quality, and they differ in licensing terms and in their prices.

My question actually was if product A, the microstock, leaves some market place for the product B, the rights managed photography.

How exactly the rights managed photography product can be differentiated? Ten years ago they would say “quality”. Well, I believe that today it is not a good differentiator anymore.

Exclusivity?
Well, for the rights managed photography exclusivity is typically time-limited. So if a buyer really wants a face or an image to be associated with some brand identity and probably to appear in the marketing campaigns, he will hire a photographer and models, and will sign them on exclusivity agreements, protecting his brand. A one- or two-years exclusivity will not work for him.

With such an agreement, the buyer gets hundreds of top quality images released exclusively for his business. The funny thing is that the costs of doing that are comparable to buying a few rights manages photos, if they are priced at $4000-6000 each, like this one above.

When I add here inconvenient time consuming online purchase process on rights-managed photo site like this one above, or even worst, the bureaucratic procedures of signing an agreement with a stock agency or a photographer, it all makes me very skeptic regarding the future of rights managed photography.