Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,573   Posts: 1,545,691   Online: 803
      
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Floriduh
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,272
    Images
    2

    Wow, I could make 20 cents an image.

    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. #2
    Bruce Osgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Brooklyn, N.Y. USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,437
    Images
    45
    I learned long ago to NEVER read anything called "Popular" or "Modern". Those titles should be replaced with "Mediocre" and "Ephemeral".

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce (Camclicker)
    I learned long ago to NEVER read anything called "Popular" or "Modern". Those titles should be replaced with "Mediocre" and "Ephemeral".
    Funny how sooner or later we all come to the same conclusion huh?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    south of north pole
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    8
    "Popular photography" is good for two things : lining the bottom of a bird cage, or lining a cat litter box. Rag.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Floriduh
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,272
    Images
    2
    At least I didn't pay for it.

  6. #6
    127
    127 is offline
    127's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    uk
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by waynecrider
    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
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by waynecrider
    I consider this and all the other royalty free, pay the photographer nothing sites, to be a virus to the health of professional photographers
    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. #7

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Floriduh
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,272
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by 127
    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?
    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. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    WA, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    79
    Images
    1

    Alamy Stock Statistics

    Quote Originally Posted by waynecrider
    I just wish a few stock sellers would come around and comment on the trade as it exist today as compared to yesterday.
    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-page...2005-alamy.htm

  9. #9
    127
    127 is offline
    127's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    uk
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by waynecrider
    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.
    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



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin