ZARIHS RETOUCHER wrote:
stock photography is unfair business for photographers !

Is that why you're a retoucher? ;-)

ZARIHS RETOUCHER wrote:
stock photography is unfair business for photographers !

Completely inaccurate statement..

ZARIHS RETOUCHER wrote:
stock photography is unfair business for photographers !

Correction: Royalty Free & Microstock are unfair to photographers, Rights Managed is terrific. (I make 2/3 if my income from RM, thank you). A lot of successful photographers shoot nothing but stock, but it usually isn't glamour girls in minimal clothing with pop-up flash.

ZARIHS RETOUCHER wrote:
stock photography is unfair business for photographers !

When you say "FOR" instead of "TO" I read it as you are jealous photographers get to continuously resell their images and earn money from them for the duration of their life without needing to do anything more than make the images available through a service.

And, when I read it like that I smile but, I think we earn it.

If you meant to say stock agencies are unfair I think you are ill informed and only have dealt with or learned about terrible royalty free microstock sites.

I have contributed to Getty and Zuma Press and with both I felt very fairly compensated at a nice 50/50 split on earnings from licensing.

Justin Kral wrote:

Completely inaccurate statement..

how is it inaccurate?

Last year there was a Time Magazine cover purchased through microstock for 30 bucks there about. 30 bucks for a cover of one of the MAJOR international magazine!

Who the hell in their right mind would get out of bed for such a stupid amount?

People are saying the economy is shit for photographers. I wonder why. When photographers themselves no longer value their work for what it's worth.

Allan Duncan  wrote:

how is it inaccurate?

Last year there was a Time Magazine cover purchased through microstock for 30 bucks there about. 30 bucks for a cover of one of the MAJOR international magazine!

Who the hell in their right mind would get out of bed for such a stupid amount?

People are saying the economy is shit for photographers. I wonder why. When photographers themselves no longer value their work for what it's worth.

I think you said it yourself...it's the photographers that don't value their work. Not the microsite.  Why are you blaming ONLY that company when they clearly say they are a royalty free service and it only takes five minutes of research to understand that anyone can use the image they pay $30 for in any way they wish.

I would never personally bother with putting my images in a royalty free database.  But, I could understand their purpose for random junk images meant for graphic designer/layout designers to use as mock up purposes mainly.

Gary Livingston wrote:
I think you said it yourself...it's the photographers that don't value their work. Not the microsite.  Why are you blaming ONLY that company when they clearly say they are a royalty free service and it only takes five minutes of research to understand that anyone can use the image they pay $30 for in any way they wish.

I would never personally bother with putting my images in a royalty free database.  But, I could understand their purpose for random junk images meant for graphic designer/layout designers to use as mock up purposes mainly.

People here and often elsewhere conveniently forget about exclusivity.  Time magazine chose to use a low-cost image for their cover despite the fact that all of their competitors (or imitators) could use the same image at the same time.  Time is apparently fine with a non-exclusive image on their cover, a sign that they no longer see themselves as unique or exclusive.  Although, I would imagine that the editors would think twice about buying a cover from microstock again given the attention it received.

Many other clients are similarly satisfied with sharing their identity in exchange for lower costs.  I just had a stock shot purchased (at a shockingly low price) for a national ad.  It would be disingenuous to cry about the loss of a national advertising fee when the brand/agency itself is satisfied with non-exclusive images/usage.  If that is their position, it is unlikely that they would have hired a crew to create that image.

With that said, stock (both traditional and micro) has contributed to the threat on photographer's fees and prospects.  Your lofted Getty has been one threats.

Andy Pearlman wrote:
Correction: Royalty Free & Microstock are unfair to photographers, Rights Managed is terrific. (I make 2/3 if my income from RM, thank you). A lot of successful photographers shoot nothing but stock, but it usually isn't glamour girls in minimal clothing with pop-up flash.

This ^^

Rights Managed Stock Photography is one of the areas I'm looking at getting into as a commercial photographer who shoots a lot of food and product images. I'm still researching which agencies are best for what I shoot, but from what I've seen, RM imagery is a great avenue to pursue.

Allan Duncan  wrote:

how is it inaccurate?

Last year there was a Time Magazine cover purchased through microstock for 30 bucks there about. 30 bucks for a cover of one of the MAJOR international magazine!

Who the hell in their right mind would get out of bed for such a stupid amount?

People are saying the economy is shit for photographers. I wonder why. When photographers themselves no longer value their work for what it's worth.

Ok..  So that person made $30 on that one download from Time Magazine but the image has been on that agency available for download over and over and over even to this day, while the photographer has put no more effort into that image, and that is only one image in their portfolio..

Gary Livingston wrote:

I think you said it yourself...it's the photographers that don't value their work. Not the microsite.  Why are you blaming ONLY that company when they clearly say they are a royalty free service and it only takes five minutes of research to understand that anyone can use the image they pay $30 for in any way they wish.

I would never personally bother with putting my images in a royalty free database.  But, I could understand their purpose for random junk images meant for graphic designer/layout designers to use as mock up purposes mainly.

There is a ton of money in royalty free as well..  Your royalties are less than RM but you will have far more sales.. 

The biggest misunderstanding about microstock is that you have to have a niche to be successful..  You cannot just upload any photos that you want that pass inspection and expect them to sell..  Your style has to be something buyers want to buy.

R3dko wrote:

Is that why you're a retoucher? ;-)

photographer then retoucher !

ZARIHS RETOUCHER wrote:
stock photography is unfair business for photographers !

No, it's not.  There is nothing FAIR about charging a high price for something commonly available.  I've been paid to take pictures of things for over thirty years.  A small portion of what I used to do has given way to stock, but that's not "unfair".  It's just the loss of a little bit of bonus income. 

Just for your consideration:

If ten thousand images exist of a flower covered with dew drops, how much can it be worth? 

If there is only one image of a 747 exploding in the middle of a double rainbow, how could it be available for pennies?

I believe that about 99.9% of all images sell for exactly what they are worth.

Dan Howell wrote:

People here and often elsewhere conveniently forget about exclusivity.  Time magazine chose to use a low-cost image for their cover despite the fact that all of their competitors (or imitators) could use the same image at the same time.  Time is apparently fine with a non-exclusive image on their cover, a sign that they no longer see themselves as unique or exclusive.  Although, I would imagine that the editors would think twice about buying a cover from microstock again given the attention it received.

Many other clients are similarly satisfied with sharing their identity in exchange for lower costs.  I just had a stock shot purchased (at a shockingly low price) for a national ad.  It would be disingenuous to cry about the loss of a national advertising fee when the brand/agency itself is satisfied with non-exclusive images/usage.  If that is their position, it is unlikely that they would have hired a crew to create that image.

With that said, stock (both traditional and micro) has contributed to the threat on photographer's fees and prospects.  Your lofted Getty has been one threats.

I shoot a lot of editorial and sports images where stock is fantastic source of revenue.  My main client sends me on assignment.  They use the images for their article.  Then, a magazine across the world is doing a story on event and they license that same image and i make bonus cash on a job I was already paid for to produce and used in its primary purpose. 

I will bring up my photo teacher again, he shoots stuff with celebrities for magazines and local papers. Editorial rates for shooting the assignments are chump change compared to the earnings that roll in from the royalties paid by publications across the world to use them.  If he didn't put those images in a stock bank and he was just sitting on them he would be missing out on about $50,000 a month.  In cases like this stock is a very beneficial service working with photographers.   

I think anyone that is complaining about stock photography being a threat to their business they are someone that needs to rework their marketing strategy and salesmanship.  You even make points in your post about what a photographer needs to focus on when pitching their service and rates to a client that brings up using stock.  Exclusivity being the big one.

And, like you said if the client is cheap enough about their branding to not care then they probably wouldn't pay much for sending a photographer on assignment.  Who's job is being lost due to them going with stock instead?  The college student scouring craigslist gigs that s/he will do for free just to put something in their portfolio? 

I think the real threat is lack of creativity.  By the clients and the photographers.

TA Craft Photography wrote:
1 - What makes this the "official" stock forum thread?

I see the same old well worn arguments are being rolled out against the modern ways.

Moan all you like against micro stock, it ain't going away, not now, not soon, not never. Your not forced to get up to date and do stuff the 21st century way.  Every time this come up you get some one who gets their microscope out and looks at tiny individual image sales, and says their work is worth more, and so it is, but muliply your crumb sales by 100 or 1000 and you are into what micro stock is really about. 

The old days of snooby stock have gone, move with the times. Why do you think the tradditional boys have been buying up microstock companies and why have Alamy introduced a band of price which is almost the same as microstock?

still-photography wrote:

No, it's not.  There is nothing FAIR about charging a high price for something commonly available.  I've been paid to take pictures of things for over thirty years.  A small portion of what I used to do has given way to stock, but that's not "unfair".  It's just the loss of a little bit of bonus income. 

Just for your consideration:

If ten thousand images exist of a flower covered with dew drops, how much can it be worth? 

If there is only one image of a 747 exploding in the middle of a double rainbow, how could it be available for pennies?

I believe that about 99.9% of all images sell for exactly what they are worth.

Allan Duncan  wrote:
how is it inaccurate?

Last year there was a Time Magazine cover purchased through microstock for 30 bucks there about. 30 bucks for a cover of one of the MAJOR international magazine!

And Warren Buffet sometimes buys a $1 fast food hamburger even though he can afford and sometimes buys a steak dinner for hundreds. So what? Sometimes people don't require or desire an upper end product.  People demand both upper end and lower end products and suppliers produce both at a profit. 

I know one Art Director who can afford to pay more than his average budget for a pro photographer when he needs it because he balances it with a microstock image when that fits his needs.

Allan Duncan  wrote:
Who the hell in their right mind would get out of bed for such a stupid amount?

Yuri Arcurs for one. He said he averages $10/image but has seen an annual income of over one million US$.  Granted not many come close to that, but it shows "stupid" amounts can add up.  Lisa Gagne makes six figures as an exclusive Istock contributor.

Gregory Storm wrote:
For you photographers that are with more than one stock site, which company's model release do you have people sign?  Do you have your own version that all companies accept or do you have your models sign multiple releases?

Best,

Gregory

Just to answer this before heading back out the door, but the agency I've been speaking with has its own specific model and properly releases that I will need to have signed whenever appropriate. A release is even required if a shot shows nothing more than a hand. Back when I modeled for stock, I always signed releases specific to the agency with which the images were going to be assigned. I imagine most larger stock agencies have their own specific releases that have been written/approved by their respective legal departments, just to ensure their i's are dotted and t's are crossed. Even if some of the agencies will accept a standard form from another standard source, I doubt many would accept just any release a photographer provides. It likely has to be approved first.

I intend to have both my own release and a stock agency specific form on hand for the models to sign, just to make sure all uses are covered.

Gary Livingston wrote:
If you have agencies that should be up there, follow the format and make a post.

Here you go:
http://www.google.com/search?q=stock+photo+agency

Digital Planet Design wrote:

Here you go:
http://www.google.com/search?q=stock+photo+agency

Feel better now?

If you don't have anything to contribute then don't but why the need to piss on someone else's parade.

SMDH

Christine Rose wrote:

Feel better now?

If you don't have anything to contribute then don't but why the need to piss on someone else's parade.

SMDH

Feel fine, thanks.

The OP asked for stock agencies to add to his thread.  Since he only managed to come up with four, I thought he might like to do a bit more research.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

Yuri Arcurs for one. He said he averages $10/image but has seen an annual income of over one million US$.  Granted not many come close to that, but it shows "stupid" amounts can add up.  Lisa Gagne makes six figures as an exclusive Istock contributor.

A photographer I know shoots exclusively for IStock. She averages $2,500 per month. She has about 2700 images uploaded. She pays me to prep her photos to IStock standards. Most of her sales are medical and travel images.

Jeff Fiore wrote:

A photographer I know shoots exclusively for IStock. She averages $2,500 per month. She has about 2700 images uploaded. She pays me to prep her photos to IStock standards. Most of her sales are medical and travel images.

I know many have said it pays to focus on a niche or two. Glad your friend is donig so well.

Diana Price-Retro Photo wrote:
Thread suggestion: Including info about their current pay terms. I know some have been getting pretty bad, and am actually trying to find a thread covering pay terms

If anyone knows the opening terms let me know and i'll post them up top.

Gary Livingston wrote:

I think you said it yourself...it's the photographers that don't value their work. Not the microsite.  Why are you blaming ONLY that company when they clearly say they are a royalty free service and it only takes five minutes of research to understand that anyone can use the image they pay $30 for in any way they wish.

I would never personally bother with putting my images in a royalty free database.  But, I could understand their purpose for random junk images meant for graphic designer/layout designers to use as mock up purposes mainly.

LAST TIME [NO PUN] I LOOKED
TIME WAS 60? PAGES...of junk
its dying fast