DSLRUsers.com

macka wrote:1) Depends on the site you submit to. Read terms and conditions carefully.

2) I guess the reason is that most of them only pay you 20cents per image. Would you want to sell your best pics for that much? There are a few better paying ones around, such as Alamy and Photographers Direct.

3) Only think I can think of is that some of them want you to supply your pictures exclusively to them, while others don't care. Again, each one is different so just read their terms and conditions.

4) Check out old threads on this forum. I did a search and found at least 2.

gecko wrote:I have been buying stock images a bit lately....
Often I am looking for a specific colour or object and appreciate it when there are a variety of images to choose from. I would suggest submitting anthing that looks OK, you never know what people are looking for... and the final use might be a tight crop or abstract....

Cheers

Gecko

Sheila Smart wrote:I have been a member of OzImages for about three years and while I don't generally shoot "stock", it has paid for a few lenses! The site is different in that it charges the photographer an annual fee (I believe around $320) but you get to keep what you sell. All you need do is sell one image, and you are head They do not charge commission at all. The photographer negotiates the price with the prospective buyer. Matt Brading, who runs the site out of Cairns, sends emails to all his members with the latest Photo Requests he receives from the clients. You can check out the site here http://www.ozimages.com.au

His clients generally come from the US, UK and Australia. It was through this site that I sold my frangipani image to Kleenex.

That said, I do sell much more from my PBase galleries which is not a stock agency - just a photographic site.

Before I joined OzImages, I did check stock libraries such as Alamy and found that they required huge files and wanted model and property releases on all images submitted to them (where appropriate).

Cheers
Sheila

stubbsy wrote:So why submit to an agency where you get a few cents rather than one where you get a few hundred dollars. It seems to me that the cheap sites will ultimately devalue what an image is worth.

Sheila Smart wrote:

stubbsy wrote:So why submit to an agency where you get a few cents rather than one where you get a few hundred dollars. It seems to me that the cheap sites will ultimately devalue what an image is worth.

I totally agree. I cannot understand why folk sell their images for sometimes less than five dollars (and in some cases a dollar ). This truly does devalue work and is the bane of professional photographers (of which I am not one) who can see the money they have invested in their gear evaporate. Someone is making money on Shutterstock and its ilk but its certainly not the photographer

Cheers
Sheila

By this Agreement, ShutterStock grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, right to use and reproduce Images in the following ways, subject to the limitations set forth herein and in Part II hereof:
a) On web sites;
b) Incorporated into software as a background image or splash screen, provided that the Image cannot be unincorporated from the software or viewed as a slideshow or the equivalent;
c) In multimedia presentations and incorporated into film and video for broadcast use, and theatrical display only where the intended audience will consist of fewer than 250,000 viewers;
d) In CD or DVD cover art, magazines, newspapers, books, eBooks, book covers, textbooks, editorials provided that the manufacturing or print run of such CDs or DVDs, magazines, newspapers, etc. does not exceed two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) copies in the aggregate;
e) Incorporated in online and paper greeting cards provided that such cards combine text and Images, subject to the restrictions set forth in paragraph 12, below; and
f) As toolbar skins and mobile phone "wallpaper" for personal use.
g) On letterhead, business cards, advertising or promotional posters, pamphlets, brochures, catalogs, provided that the Image is not used as and does not function as a trademark, service mark or logo or as any element thereof.
h) As decoration in an office, restaurant, public area, home, or store owned or rented by you or by a client for whom you render design services.
i) As a single hand painted reproduction (not as a printed reproduction) on a canvas or other material to be used as decoration and not resold.
j) In the event that you create a derivative work based on or incorporating one or more Images, all rights in and to such Images shall continue to be owned by ShutterStock or its Submitter, subject to your rights to use such Image(s) pursuant to the terms and limitations set forth herein.
k) In coordination with opt-in email marketing. Images cannot be used in connection with unsolicited email - or linked from unsolicited email.
l) All other rights in the Images are expressly reserved by ShutterStock for itself and its Submitters.

TonyH wrote:Dug,

It's great that you are earning from Alamy, however I don't see any real difference between them and Shutterstock. Sure, a difference in price, but both are doing "professionals" potentially out of a shoot.

However, both are stock sites, just servicing different markets.

We have exactly the same dilema in my industry which is printing. People put in a colour laser printer and call themselves "printers". Their clients buy from them on price or location convenience. They contact me when their jobs are too difficult for the amateurs to do.

You have the same drama with photo shops and K-Mart and Big W. We are never going to stop it, so I reckon get on with it and earn as much as you are able from the "Stock" sites. If the client can afford a professional or the job requires one then I'm sure they will hire one.

Tony