Pixsy charges nothing until it recovers money for you, then takes a cut. InCyan charges a flat enterprise licence regardless of how much infringement it finds. Which one is cheaper depends entirely on how much infringement you actually have, and that answer changes as a catalogue grows.
The contingency math
A contingency model is genuinely free at low volume. If you have a handful of infringement cases a year, paying a percentage only when Pixsy wins is a better deal than any flat licence fee, because there’s nothing to pay if there’s no infringement.
That math flips once infringement volume climbs. A catalogue of a few hundred images generates a few hundred potential cases a year, at most. A catalogue of a million images, actively licensed and reused across the web, generates infringement continuously. At that volume, a percentage of every recovery starts adding up to more than a flat annual fee would have cost.
sbb-itb-738ac1e
Where the break-even sits
The exact break-even point depends on your average recovery amount and how much infringement your catalogue actually attracts, numbers that vary a lot by industry and image type. As a rule of thumb: the more images you have circulating publicly, and the more valuable each recovery tends to be, the sooner a flat-fee enterprise platform overtakes a contingency model in total cost.
Three factors that push the break-even point earlier:
- High catalogue volume. More images in circulation means more infringement events, and each one under a contingency model costs you a percentage.
- High-value licensing, not just recovery. If the goal shifts from “recover damages for theft” to “sell licences at scale,” a contingency-recovery model doesn’t apply at all. That’s a different business model, one InCyan’s Blueprint media licensing system is built around.
- Multimodal assets. Contingency-recovery services built for photographs don’t extend to video, audio, or text. Once your catalogue spans formats, you need a platform priced for that breadth, not a per-image recovery fee that doesn’t apply to the other formats at all.
What InCyan’s flat model includes
InCyan’s enterprise pricing isn’t tied to how many infringement cases get resolved. It covers detection (InCyan Idem content identification), enforcement (InCyan Indago search delisting), and licensing (Blueprint) as one system, so the cost doesn’t scale up every time infringement volume does. For a catalogue with continuous infringement, that’s the opposite of a contingency fee: the more infringement you find, the better the flat-rate deal looks.
Break-even guide
| Catalogue profile | Likely cheaper model |
|---|---|
| A few hundred images, occasional infringement | Pixsy’s contingency fee |
| Thousands of images, moderate recurring infringement | Depends on average recovery value; run the math |
| A large or actively licensed catalogue with continuous infringement | InCyan’s flat enterprise licence |
| Multimodal catalogue (image, video, audio, text) | InCyan, since Pixsy’s model doesn’t extend to non-image formats |
For scale, online piracy cost the U.S. entertainment industry an estimated $73 billion in lost revenue in 2023, according to figures from the Motion Picture Association summarized by CyberNews. That’s the macro backdrop against which any per-case recovery fee is being paid, one case at a time.
Honest answer, either way
If your catalogue is small and infringement is occasional, Pixsy’s contingency model is probably cheaper and lower-risk. If your catalogue is large, actively licensed, or spans multiple content types, run the math on what a percentage of continuous recovery actually costs over a year and compare it to an enterprise licence. For many agencies and publishers, that comparison is what moves the decision, not a general claim that one model beats the other.
Frequently asked questions
Is a contingency-fee model always cheaper than a flat licence?
Only at low infringement volume. As infringement events climb, a percentage-of-recovery fee on every case starts to exceed what a flat annual licence would have cost.
Does InCyan charge per image or per infringement case?
No. InCyan’s enterprise pricing is licence-based, not tied to case volume, so cost doesn’t rise as detected infringement rises.
What if I only have a small photo catalogue?
For a small catalogue with occasional infringement, a contingency-fee tool like Pixsy is likely the lower-cost option, since there’s no charge unless a recovery happens.
What percentage does Pixsy typically take from a recovery?
Pixsy’s exact contingency percentage isn’t a fixed public figure and can vary by case; check current terms directly with Pixsy before running the break-even math for your own catalogue.
Does InCyan publish its enterprise pricing publicly?
No. InCyan’s enterprise pricing isn’t published on its site and is scoped per client based on catalogue size, asset types, and which services (Idem, Indago, Blueprint, and others) are included. A demo request is the way to get an actual quote.
Is there a middle-ground pricing option between contingency and flat enterprise licensing?
Not from either InCyan or Pixsy specifically, based on their public materials. Some vendors in this space offer tiered or usage-based pricing between those two extremes; if that flexibility matters, it’s worth asking both companies directly whether an interim option exists.
How do I estimate my own break-even point before signing anything?
Start with three numbers: your catalogue size, your average infringement rate over the past year, and Pixsy’s contingency percentage on a typical recovery. Multiply infringement events by average recovery value and by the contingency rate to estimate annual contingency cost, then compare that to a quoted flat enterprise rate. Neither company publishes a calculator for this, so the estimate has to be built from your own historical data.
Does switching from a contingency model to a flat licence require migrating my existing case history?
That depends on the specific vendors involved and isn’t addressed in either company’s public documentation. If migration matters to your decision, it’s worth asking both InCyan and Pixsy directly what happens to open cases and historical records during a transition.
Are there hidden costs in InCyan’s flat-fee model that could make it more expensive than expected?
InCyan’s public materials describe the pricing as licence-based rather than itemized per service, but the exact scope of what’s included in a given contract (which products, what support level, what catalogue size limits) isn’t published. Confirming the full scope in writing before signing is the way to avoid surprises, the same advice that applies to any enterprise SaaS contract.
Does a contingency model like Pixsy’s ever end up costing more than expected in year one?
It can, if infringement volume in the first year turns out higher than anticipated, since a contingency fee scales directly with successful recoveries. That’s part of why the break-even guide above treats it as a variable cost rather than a fixed one.
Related reading
- InCyan vs. Pixsy: Which One Scales Past a Single Photographer?
- InCyan vs. Red Points: Flat-Fee vs. Usage-Based Pricing at Scale
See InCyan’s enterprise platform to compare licensing costs against your own infringement volume.
