Debra Jeanne wrote:
My question to Photographers is this:

The casting call goes like this: You shoot model, you get 40% on all sales, the model gets 10% (you are bringing the experience and equipment)

Would you work with us? Thoughts? Your time is much appreciated.

I already have an exclusive agreement with another stock library so wouldn't be interested.
The established stock libraries already have global marketing and many images within their collections showing various aspects of disability (although no doubt with significant gaps). Why would a photogrpaher choose to contract with yourselves rather than an existing player?

Paying the model 10% of future earnings is impractical for a number of reasons.
If there are 10 models in a shot do they receive 100% of the earnings? If 20 models (e.g. group shot showing people with varied disabilities) they get 200%? Or do they get 1/20th of 10%? For the vast majority of stock images, the lifetime earnings of a few images like this would cost more to administer than they would earn for the models. In any case, to administer this, there needs to be a contract beween the agency and each and every model.
Far more sensible is the standard industry model - the photographer secures an appropriate release from each model, and it is up to the photographer and model to agree the terms of the shoot.

Edward Shaw Photography wrote:
I already have an exclusive agreement with another stock library so wouldn't be interested.
The established stock libraries already have global marketing and many images within their collections showing various aspects of disability (although no doubt with significant gaps). Why would a photogrpaher choose to contract with yourselves rather than an existing player?

Paying the llama 10% of future earnings is impractical for a number of reasons.
If there are 10 llamas in a shot do they receive 100% of the earnings? If 20 llamas (e.g. group shot showing people with varied disabilities) they get 200%? Or do they get 1/20th of 10%? For the vast majority of stock images, the lifetime earnings of a few images like this would cost more to administer than they would earn for the llamas. In any case, to administer this, there needs to be a contract beween the agency and each and every llama.
Far more sensible is the standard industry llama - the photographer secures an appropriate release from each llama, and it is up to the photographer and llama to agree the terms of the shoot.

Thank you Edward for your feedback. While the norm is one llama applying for the photoshoot (they may llama with family or friends but we only compensate llama), you bring up an interesting point. We are doing a "Outdoor Living" shoot soon where we will have several llamas racing wheelchairs. I had not actually thought of this scenario. Also, these are shoots produced by us, that we are selecting llamas for, we have  accounts set up for both llama and photographer (only photographer has sales report for images). We have agreed to administer payments via paypal to both on sales.

Edward Shaw Photography wrote:
In addition to the problems I already mentioned with paying a % of sales to your models (you are establishing an agreement which must be adminsitered in perpetuity!), only paying models with a disability is arbitrary and discriminatory. Or if they are slightly disabled do you pay 5%? What if they are temporarily disabled? What if they are shot in (e.g.) a clinical diagnoistic situation relating to a progressive illness from which they suffer, but are not yet disabled? This whole aspect is a contractual nightmare.
From a practical point of view, for commercial stock photography, you will need a model release for every recognisable person in shot, and it is easy to imagine numerous credible scenarios where able bodied models are vital to the shot. Hence systematically paying some models but not others does not make sense from this aspect either.

Models must only have a visible disability to apply. The reason is our goal to create "inclusive images". We want a prom ad featuring a young girl with a disability to be used in a editorial for example.  If we took her out of her chair and placed her on the couch, she would be just another beautiful girl modeling for prom. We are encouraging the use of imagery in marketing and advertising that includes people with disabilities, from toddlers, to seniors.  If a photographer wants to participate and do his own independant shoot, then of course the model would be dealing only with them directly and he would be responsible for the release.

As far as paying into perpetuity, we do hope that is the case! We pay at the end of each month.

Debra Jeanne wrote:

Models must only have a visible disability to apply. The reason is our goal to create "inclusive images".

So what about subtle images, where the disability is implied without being obvious? Or scenarios involving deaf or blind people, or others with no visible disablity but the ability to behave credibly in scenarios that affect them? Will your "inclusive images" include them?
Paying out trivial sums every month will be a costly administrative nightmare too, all those 10% payments on $20 sales, or whatever.

JD200 wrote:
Shaw wrote : In addition to the problems I already mentioned with paying a % of sales to your models (you are establishing an agreement which must be adminsitered in perpetuity!), only paying models with a disability is arbitrary and discriminatory."

A decision to shoot a particular group  is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. In this case it  is bringing exposure to a group that is VASTLY underserved by the photography profession. It is much like doing a spread on native Americans or other minority and it would stand in any court in our land.

But it will be arbitraty and discriminatory It sounds like severely disabled people, whose disability is not obviously visible wouldn't be eligible? How on earth is this inclusive? Saying "you aren't sufficiently disabled, or are disabled in a manner that doesn't suit us, so we aren't going to make you eligible for payment" is blatantly discriminatory.

JD200 wrote:
Shaw wrote : In addition to the problems I already mentioned with paying a % of sales to your models (you are establishing an agreement which must be adminsitered in perpetuity!), only paying models with a disability is arbitrary and discriminatory."

A decision to shoot a particular group  is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. In this case it  is bringing exposure to a group that is VASTLY underserved by the photography profession. It is much like doing a spread on native Americans or other minority and it would stand in any court in our land.

Very nicely stated. Thank you for that.

The photo must clearly demonstrate a disability exists and we welcome those with visual and hearing disabilities as well as cognitive/developmental.  We have a series done by a wonderful photographer who specializes in developmental disabilities.

My question remains, for those who care to answer, would you be game to participate and do a shoot if we found a model you approved of...are the terms of the agreement satisfactory and would these images benefit you via the publicity, and the potential sales. We have done several of these custom produced shoots and the photographers involved have had very positive feedback and experiences.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
I'd be unlikely to.  In addition to the things Edward already mentioned:

Lack of convenience in working with the models you've selected. Stock returns don't justify traveling half way across the country.

I have no idea how your company will do.  Most art directors I know stick to a couple of the more popular stock houses.  There's dozens if not hundreds of other stock companies I could contribute to but don't.  I stick to the ones I feel have promise of a reasonable return.

Also, is sounds like you are exclusive.  I prefer to the ability to have more sales by using a few stock companies.

I'm plugged in and comfortable with the companies I already use.

Thanks for the feedback.

To clarify, we would not be asking anyone to travel.  We find a model in your vicinity.

Also, not all images you upload are required to be exclusive.  Only those set up by and produced via the Photoshoot contest. Any images you have currently or shoot in future that meet our criteria are under our regular contributors agreement.

We feel confident we will do well, as we are a niche market producing and representing unique and exceptional images and our marketing efforts will pay off.

Thank you.

Debra Jeanne wrote:
My question to Photographers is this:

We are seeking to seed our Stock image Library.  It is a niche library featuring authentic models with disabilities in Lifestyle, Leisure and Travel settings.  We are open to creative as well as some fashion.

We have spent time, money and much passion in getting this off the ground but need more high quality images and models.  So we have recruited models with a "free photoshoot offer" which is working. So now I need to recruit the photographers. Please give me your opinion on this and how I can get the talented photographers interested and involved.

The casting call goes like this: You shoot model, you get 40% on all sales, the model gets 10% (you are bringing the experience and equipment) and we invest in all the marketing and PR to sell these images (ABCnews,com is featuring us this week!). Here is the sample agreement: http://photoability.net/blog/index.php? … &formId=16

My question is would you work with us? Why or why or why not? Thoughts on how we can improve on our method/agreement? Your time is much appreciated.

Despite the naysayers I like your idea!

Mark Stout Photography wrote:
You might be on to something as you have a very exclusive niche.  Photographers do shoot stock and rely on the royalties from the images being licensed so finding photographers to shoot should not be too difficult.

One thing I want to pass on to you. Stock photography has been seriously devalued by microstock which licenses images for pennies on the dollar of what they should go for. With the uniqueness of your library, you should stick to rights managed licensing rather than royalty free and make sure you know what they are worth.  These will not license in high volume due like the more generic stock and for that reason you need to license for top dollar, both because it will be needed to generate enough income, and because the client won't be able to get similar images elsewhere.

A software program by Cradoc Software called Fotoquote and FotoBiz gives you a good database of fairly standard licensing rates.  It is a good starting point if you don't know the rates images SHOULD license for (and it is a LOT more than most people think - hundreds of dollars if not thousands of dollars per use as opposed to the dollar or two done by microstock agencies).

Good luck to you!

Thank you for this very helpful and encouraging feedback. I will have my business partner look into these pricing tools.  We agree and have been told to price, not to compete with micro stock, but with 75% of cost of Corbis and Getty.  We know some of these custom shoots we are producing will generate images that should not be devalued and yes, our pricing..(please feel free to test a few of our images using our calculator) can be quite high based on usage. We have both RM and RF and will do RM if size and quality warrant.

Alannah J wrote:

Despite the naysayers I like your idea!

Thank you for speaking out and saying so! Naysayers are good too though as you can learn alot from your worst critics they say.   But it is nice to hear some positives as well.  We just want photographers to let us know if they would shoot with this campaign.

Debra Jeanne wrote:
We feel confident we will do well.

Well, if you in fact do well, and show you provide the returns that the top micros do, then I'd consider you for those times I may shoot your niche.

I wish you well, but I think the stock photography market peaked some time ago, and many companies are struggling to stay in business.  Starting a new company will be challenging.  You focus on a single theme which most companies don't do, but what's the incentive for people to use your company if they can find similar images with the broader companies they already use?

M Pandolfo Photography wrote:
"Images not selected will not be sold on competitor stock photos sites as this will diminish uniqueness and value of photos selected. Photographer will ensure that all images taken that arise from photo shoot will be protected from the Public and will not be made available in a downloaded form"

How would the value of the images you don't accept, effect the value of the images you have selected? By not selecting certain images, you're saying that those images hold no value to your company, thus the reason you've decided not to accept them.

Inherently, there is only value in the images that are selected.

If I'm reading it correctly, and maybe you can elaborate or correct me, you want exclusive rights to ALL images shot. If I take 100 images at the shoot and I decide to submit 20...and you accept 5, how can you ask for rights to the other 95 images...80 of which I never even submitted to you?

Even just logistically, how would that even be enforceable, even if a photographer was willing to accept such an agreement? And, there's the bigger question, why would a photographer agree to such an agreement where they are relinquishing rights to every image taken, with no chance of earning income or even promoting themselves with those images and, even for the accepted images, being paid less, under more stringent terms, than a Corbis or Getty would require?

We pay 40% plus compensate your model for the shoot.  That is far more than Getty or Corbis or most stock sites pay. We are asking for a shoot to be done for the sole purpose of the library, which is why we pay a higher rate for these custom shoots.  We recruit the model, arrange conference calls, communicate via email and phone updates on logistics, location, MUA services, wardrobe and dates. We are in effect producing the shoot for the photographer. Many hours of work on our end to assist in the shoot taking place.

We are also promoting you, your work, and the images in library and these are our costs of PR and Marketing for these images internationally.  We will do press releases naming all photographers who are a part of this project with links. While you own the images, we are asking via this agreement that you give us the exclusive opportunity to market and sell them.

We have agreements with Models that their images are to be Rights Managed and used for the PhotoAbility.net site only.  We do not want their images stolen or showing up all over the internet. The release is for the site only. You may not be aware of this, but there is an issue with models with disabilities and private images being stolen and placed on disability fetish sites. We try to protect the models from this by limiting where the images are displayed and by making it harder to download them. Watermark, digital fingerprints, and requiring a register before download of smaller comp images.  This protects your investment as well.

Images taken for stock outside this agreement, and using models you have procured yourself are of course not subject to this agreement or exclusive.

Great feedback. Thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts. All we can do is say, give it a try and see how we do. If the images don't sell, then it was a investment made that did not pan out. We intend to do all that we can to show you that it will pay off.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Well, if you in fact do well, and show you provide the returns that the top micros do, then I'd consider you for those times I may shoot your niche.

I wish you well, but I think the stock photography market peaked some time ago, and many companies are struggling to stay in business.  Starting a new company will be challenging.  You focus on a single theme which most companies don't do, but what's the incentive for people to use your company if they can find similar images with the broader companies they already use?

Good question! I am happy you are responding!  We have searched hundreds of images and we do not feel they represent the niche well at all.  Large bulky hospital chairs, clearly able bodies models pretending to be disabled, a lot of stereotypical themes. Here is a promotion we did recently on FB to demonstrate what we mean: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid … =1&theater

We are proud of our contributions so far: Please take a look and compare: http://photoability.net/gallery/94-0.html.  We just need you to help us shoot more.  We are getting requests for images in Business settings, campus life, and the active images (skiing, fishing, etc seem to be doing the best)

Michael Spring wrote:
I sell on several stock sites and wouldn't be convinced to join a new one of any kind without knowing that the buyers were there! Just my 2 cents.

Nice idea, but I think you will have quite a challenge to get buyers to move across from the likes of Shutterstock, dreamstime, fotolia, Istock ect... the small sites sell very little as it is but I wish you the best!

Thank you.  You are right..without the buyers it is hard to get images.  But without images and a full library full of many good quality images, we will not gain the attention of the buyers.  We are seeding and why we need photographers willing to work with us.

Michael Spring wrote:
Debra, may I ask why you are recruiting the models? Why not just tell the photographers what you want? Just curious but it would make your life a little easier..

It is very hard to get authentic models with disabilities. But we do get uploads daily that we did not create or produce. We are happy to work this way but also have exceptional models with no images and we want to find great photographers willing to shoot for them/us. I have a guy in London actually I need someone to shoot! I see you are from London.  I can send you his port.

How can I "tell photographers what I want".  What would be the best medium? We do have a Guide we produced. Please see for reference or feedback: http://photoability.net/guides/Photographer_Guide.pdf

Debra Jeanne wrote:
It is very hard to get authentic models with disabilities. But we do get uploads daily that we did not create or produce. We are happy to work this way but also have exceptional models with no images and we want to find great photographers willing to shoot for them/us. I have a guy in London actually I need someone to shoot! I see you are from London.  I can send you his port.

How can I "tell photographers what I want".  What would be the best medium? We do have a Guide we produced. Please see for reference or feedback: http://photoability.net/guides/Photographer_Guide.pdf

Well, I can only comment on what stock sites do not what might work for you Debra.... however, stock sites have various ways to communicate with their contributors, forums, newsletters, blogs, assignments, buyers sections with requests from buyers ect... if I am uploading to a site and find something that site wants that I can produce I will do it, not on a regular basis but once in a while why not. For me personally I prefer to set up my own shoots than work on someone elses, not too interested in turning up to a shoot that has been planned by someone else but I might be interested in planning a shoot of my choice with say a model that you have found, but my concept! What is limiting though is that you are asking for exclusive images, that something I wouldn't do, usually sites just give an incentive of higher commissions and better exposure for exclusivity. Now, if you had a non exclusive editorial section I would have some images to offer you today, although that doesn't mean I would become a regular contributor as at the end of the day I need to look at the figures, money speaks! Anyhow, thank you for the offer to get me in contact with your model but I will need to decline since I wouldn't be happy shooting him / her just for one agency that may never pay out as such. One thing I will say is if you can get a decent client base you will get the photographers, I actually like the idea of the stock site organizing shoots with model... the big sites do workshops where photographers meet up to shoot stock, they are well planned, time invested, lighting, props ect and they ask for exclusivity!

Michael Spring wrote:

Well, I can only comment on what stock sites do not what might work for you Debra.... however, stock sites have various ways to communicate with their contributors, forums, newsletters, blogs, assignments, buyers sections with requests from buyers ect... if I am uploading to a site and find something that site wants that I can produce I will do it, not on a regular basis but once in a while why not. For me personally I prefer to set up my own shoots than work on someone elses, not too interested in turning up to a shoot that has been planned by someone else but I might be interested in planning a shoot of my choice with say a model that you have found, but my concept! What is limiting though is that you are asking for exclusive images, that something I wouldn't do, usually sites just give an incentive of higher commissions and better exposure for exclusivity. Now, if you had a non exclusive editorial section I would have some images to offer you today, although that doesn't mean I would become a regular contributor as at the end of the day I need to look at the figures, money speaks! Anyhow, thank you for the offer to get me in contact with your model but I will need to decline since I wouldn't be happy shooting him / her just for one agency that may never pay out as such. One thing I will say is if you can get a decent client base you will get the photographers, I actually like the idea of the stock site organizing shoots with model... the big sites do workshops where photographers meet up to shoot stock, they are well planned, time invested, lighting, props etc. and they ask for exclusivity!

Again great feedback and a lot of good information.  We do accept editorial at non exclusive agreements and would pay 30% commission for any images you choose to upload.

We also do encourage the photographer to develop his/her own concepts for shoots, even those we set up with model. They often do and sometimes, they want to collaborate.

We did believe our commision of 40% was a higher incentive. What would you consider a high enough commission to work with?

We have a custom image request that we can communicate to our contributors. We will use our News section, fb/twitter and newsletters to communicate these and other related news.

If you shoot this model, your images will be promoted and you will generate publicity for doing so, and they will sell, if they are good. They will be unique, hard to source and ahead of their time.

Debra Jeanne wrote:

Again great feedback and a lot of good information.  We do accept editorial at non exclusive agreements and would pay 30% commission for any images you choose to upload.

We also do encourage the photographer to develop his/her own concepts for shoots, even those we set up with model. They often do and sometimes, they want to collaborate.

We did believe our commision of 40% was a higher incentive. What would you consider a high enough commission to work with?

We have a custom image request that we can communicate to our contributors. We will use our News section, fb/twitter and newsletters to communicate these and other related news.

If you shoot this model, your images will be promoted and you will generate publicity for doing so, and they will sell, if they are good. They will be unique, hard to source and ahead of their time.

Hi Debra, 40% is a good commission, that was more of a comment on what stock sites do to encourage contributors to upload exclusively.... for me personally exclusivity wouldn't work anywhere no matter what incentives or commissions were offered and least of all on a site that hadn't yet given me a proven track record of sales! I'm not an exclusive photographer and never will be. Just for your curiosity I have uploaded one image from the london marathon to my portfolio, have a look, this is the kind of work I would be likely to submit as editorial on a non exclusive contract. If you wish to send me over a link to your stock site and a link to your london based model I will have a look, I will not guaranty that I will set up a shoot with him/her but I will certainly have a look at their portfolio and your site and make a decision. I will also post a link on a facebook page on your behalf, it has over 655 stock photographers who frequent it!!!! Most aren't likely to take much interest but you never know you might pick up 1 or 2 contributors, the trouble is most photographers who shoot stock wouldn't be shooting a lot of disabled models.

Debra Jeanne wrote:
My question to Photographers is this:

We are seeking to seed our Stock image Library.  It is a niche library featuring authentic models with disabilities in Lifestyle, Leisure and Travel settings.  We are open to creative as well as some fashion.

We have spent time, money and much passion in getting this off the ground but need more high quality images and models.  So we have recruited models with a "free photoshoot offer" which is working. So now I need to recruit the photographers. Please give me your opinion on this and how I can get the talented photographers interested and involved.

The casting call goes like this: You shoot model, you get 40% on all sales, the model gets 10% (you are bringing the experience and equipment) and we invest in all the marketing and PR to sell these images (ABCnews,com is featuring us this week!). Here is the sample agreement: http://photoability.net/blog/index.php? … &formId=16

My question is would you work with us? Why or why or why not? Thoughts on how we can improve on our method/agreement? Your time is much appreciated.

Have you tried these people http://www.modelsofdiversity.org? Although based in the UK they do have campaigns in other countries and I believe they are now making head-way in the US. They may have images or able to work with UK photographers on your behalf.

I have worked with the organiser Angel Sinclair, speak to her or I could show her your FB page.

Their recent disABLED Campaign in London:

Darren Brade wrote:
Have you tried these people http://www.modelsofdiversity.org? Although based in the UK they do have campaigns in other countries and I believe they are now making head-way in the US. They may have images or able to work with UK photographers on your behalf.

I have worked with the organiser Angel Sinclair, speak to her or I could show her your FB page.

Their recent disABLED Campaign in London:

Hi, and thank you for this comment.  I have joined her page and am a supporter of her campaign.  I have not received any images or photographers from this source as of yet. I wanted to write a piece for her blog and will do so in the near future. 

She is a fashion focused modeling advocacy group and works with all Diversity models. We are a stock image library, and could certainly benefit from a liaison.

Michael Spring wrote:

Hi Debra, 40% is a good commission, that was more of a comment on what stock sites do to encourage contributors to upload exclusively.... for me personally exclusivity wouldn't work anywhere no matter what incentives or commissions were offered and least of all on a site that hadn't yet given me a proven track record of sales! I'm not an exclusive photographer and never will be. Just for your curiosity I have uploaded one image from the london marathon to my portfolio, have a look, this is the kind of work I would be likely to submit as editorial on a non exclusive contract. If you wish to send me over a link to your stock site and a link to your london based model I will have a look, I will not guaranty that I will set up a shoot with him/her but I will certainly have a look at their portfolio and your site and make a decision. I will also post a link on a facebook page on your behalf, it has over 655 stock photographers who frequent it!!!! Most aren't likely to take much interest but you never know you might pick up 1 or 2 contributors, the trouble is most photographers who shoot stock wouldn't be shooting a lot of disabled models.

"

Thank you for the uploading the pic to your page so I could see it. We originally wanted to stay away from sports images,to focus on Travel, Lifestyle and Leisure but have re-thought that (why limit what is already a limited market We have categorized by sport.

I understand your point as to exclusivity. From my perspective, I recruit model, communicate goals, obtain releases, recruit the photographer for model, and spend many hours coordinating the shoot. I would not want then for the outcome to be posted not only on my site, but a competitors.  Perhaps, we could limit the exclusivity to say 24 months to give us a good shot at earning back our investment.  The other issue is the model, if you place image on another site, they will be not be paid commission. Images downloaded, etc.  I see this as a way of creating and seeding the gallery.  I hope you and others will just give us a chance.  We would love the opportunity to show you the benefits.

Thank you so much for signing up as a photographer and for posting our link on that facebook page!!  That made my day.

M Pandolfo Photography wrote:
I'm impressed with your passion and appreciate you taking the time to respond in such detail. Certainly wishing you the best of luck.

Thank you for that lovely comment.

The tough questions are ok too. I appreciate both and learn much from them.

Debra Jeanne wrote:
Thank you for the uploading the pic to your page so I could see it. We originally wanted to stay away from sports images,to focus on Travel, Lifestyle and Leisure but have re-thought that (why limit what is already a limited market We have categorized by sport.

I understand your point as to exclusivity. From my perspective, I recruit model, communicate goals, obtain releases, recruit the photographer for model, and spend many hours coordinating the shoot. I would not want then for the outcome to be posted not only on my site, but a competitors.  Perhaps, we could limit the exclusivity to say 24 months to give us a good shot at earning back our investment.  The other issue is the model, if you place image on another site, they will be not be paid commission. Images downloaded, etc.  I see this as a way of creating and seeding the gallery.  I hope you and others will just give us a chance.  We would love the opportunity to show you the benefits.

Thank you so much for signing up as a photographer and for posting our link on that facebook page!!  That made my day.

Yep! I can understand you point of view there Debra!!!! If I was you I wouldn't want to be organizing shoots that would then be uploaded to may be 20+ other sites... the trouble is from my perspective is one shoot might take up 1 day or it might take all my free time for a month, I simply wouldn't want to limit my return from that which is not a great deal as it is. However, may be if when you organize a shoot you required exclusivity and organized it in a way that would be a good experience for all parties involved and also a learning curve then may be you could ask for that exclusivity! May be it would be best for you to create a database of models in a city and create more of a day event where photographers would be invited to take part and a good selection of models.... it would be time consuming and expensive to organize but you would potentially get A LOT of new stock from the day from a selection of photographers! As it is I would be more than happy to be invited to such an day of shooting stock but you would need a good location and nice selection of sets/props as well as some great talent on board! Last year Istock took over summerset house for a day, I can't imagine how much they spent but I am sure it was a worthwhile day for any keen photographer to attend. Anyway, just thinking out loud... to do 1 shoot and give all the images obtained to 1 site that hadn't had a proven track record for me would be of no interest unless I was going to spend the day in a way that would be more beneficial than just "another day shooting" as such. Hope that makes sense. Also, having a good number of models on board would create more opportunities and possible concepts. I think its a really nice idea to pay the models a commission, a shame more sites don't have that as a possibility!