Wow, I could make 20 cents an image.

Discussion in 'Presentation & Marketing' started by waynecrider, Aug 10, 2005.

  1. waynecrider

    waynecrider Member

    Messages:
    2,297
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    Floriduh
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I was reading the latest copy of Popular Photography & Mostly Digital Imaging and in the front under what I believe was their What's New section there was a reference to ShutterStock.com. Pop Photo's little blurb was Ever think there's a better use for all those photo's sitting on your hard drive. What if you could sell them. Shutterstock is a new online stock company that gives Pro's and amatuers a chance to sell their pictures as stock. The agency pays photographers 20 cents each time their photo is downloaded and then goes on to say how some shooters have made as much as $750 a month.

    Now I'm sorry but really, 20 cents a picture? And how tell me does a pro photographer exist on that? Truth be told, this company is rapeing people for their gain, and Pop Photography's spread of this information is a slap in the face of people trying to make a living in the craft. I consider this and all the other royalty free, pay the photographer nothing sites, to be a virus to the health of professional photographers and just as much an important issue
    as labeling a photograph correctly. Personally I'm going to write a nice little letter to the editor and tell him that their exposure of business concerns like this are wrecking the industry for people who actually need to make a living in it and pay bills. If you care to pass on your views please do so. Maybe next months issue of letters to the editor will apprise them of their disregard to people trying to make an honest living by selling stock.
     
  2. Bruce Osgood

    Bruce Osgood Membership Council Council

    Messages:
    2,613
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Location:
    Brooklyn, N.Y.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I learned long ago to NEVER read anything called "Popular" or "Modern". Those titles should be replaced with "Mediocre" and "Ephemeral".
     
  3. Jorge

    Jorge Inactive

    Messages:
    4,532
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Funny how sooner or later we all come to the same conclusion huh? :D
     
  4. mirrorslap

    mirrorslap Inactive

    Messages:
    8
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Location:
    south of nor
    Shooter:
    35mm
    "Popular photography" is good for two things : lining the bottom of a bird cage, or lining a cat litter box. Rag.
     
  5. waynecrider

    waynecrider Member

    Messages:
    2,297
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    Floriduh
    Shooter:
    35mm
    At least I didn't pay for it.
     
  6. 127

    127 Member

    Messages:
    581
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Location:
    uk
    Shooter:
    127 Format
    In this case I agree... However the $0.20 per picture model COULD work if done fairly.

    What kills this site for me is their $140/month subscription rate. While that COULD work out at $0.50 per image, in practice only commerical users are going to be able to afford a subscription, and in most cases users will download far fewer images-> greater profit for the site.

    On the other hand suppose there was a per image fee of $0.40, with a limited commercial usage clause. They'd be splitting the cash 50/50, rather than getting rich off subscriptions. Now if you needed an image for college project, buisness report, flyer etc you'd pay $0.40 for the right picture. These kinds of "clients" currently get their pictures from google images and don't pay anything for them!

    The trick (kinda like iTunes) is to make it so easy that users will pay. How much would $0.20/pic be if it was automatically added to your bank account every time someone selected your site from google images? Think about the stuff you've downloaded recently which technically you should pay a royalty for... now suppose when you start the download a box popped up and said "the owner of this work would like a $0.40 royalty payment", and clicking OK sent the cash automatically. You'd probably pay it for anything half decent.

    My website gets about 3000 hits per month... If half of them made one micro-payment, I'd be a happy bunny.

    Why should they affect the professional? I presume the pro isn't going to sell images through such sites, and considers their images worth the extra money they charge?

    As a slight change in direction - how many photographers have copies of photoshop? And how many bought it? Even pro's can see royalty payments in differently when THEY're expected to pay them.

    Ian
    (who doesn't have photoshop on his computer, and has a legit copy of a very old version which came with his scanner on another machine).
     
  7. waynecrider

    waynecrider Member

    Messages:
    2,297
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    Floriduh
    Shooter:
    35mm
    You're right. But then what about some buyer who would normally spend hundreds of dollars and finds out they can spend a hell of a lot less. Corporations, publishers and media buyers are looking for better bottom lines. These types of photo libraries are just an opportunity for them to find it if the picture is of a high enough caliber and suits their purpose. Of course this is not old news. It's been talked about, and ranted about for years. Pop's exposure tho of this concern seemed to me like a stab in the back to those I know, or have read about quite often, even professionals and some people working in the past for Pop Photo, who have stated that they receive some sort of income from plain ol' stock photo sales. I just don't see it as a benefit. It seems more like an erosion to the industry. It looks more and more to me like the only real jobs in the photogaphic industry will be in the commercial end of things, or maybe as a paparazzi, with the wedding industry somewhat lagging behind due to competition. The idea of making any real money as a stock shooter nowdays looks to be but a dream. I just wish a few stock sellers would come around and comment on the trade as it exist today as compared to yesterday.
     
  8. GregT.

    GregT. Member

    Messages:
    79
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Location:
    WA, USA
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Alamy Stock Statistics

    For a little peek at how Alamy is doing: Alamy Releases Sales Statistics is an article on The Stock Asylum's website. Its dated August 5, 2005 http://www.stockasylum.com/text-pages/articles/aasm082005-alamy.htm
     
  9. 127

    127 Member

    Messages:
    581
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Location:
    uk
    Shooter:
    127 Format
    If someone else can do as good a job at better cost then don't they deserve the buisinesss? To argue otherwise isn't the voice of a professional photographer, but someone requesting charity. The professional selling through more expensive/traditional stock libraries should be selling better images, and the libraries should be providing a better service - if they're not then they'll go under.

    I suspect the stock market is good - more is being published than ever before, but the model is changing. Literally everyone wants high quality images but most of those can't pay old style licensing fees.

    Ian