Stock Photography Questions...

[NikonUser]

Hi there,

After reading a post earlier today I'm interested in submitting images to a stock agency such as Alamy...

I've done a google search on the topic but can't really find much information on general stock photography issues... the results mainly point to actual stock agencies.

So if anyone on here knows the answers... or can point me to a book or website with the answers...that'd be great.

1) If I submit an image to a stock agency am I still able to make my own prints and sales of images?

2) My understanding is that most people send 'seconds' to stock agencies. Is there any reason not to send your best images?

3) Is there any major legal issues or any copyright issues or anything that a person submitting to a stock agency should know? (I know about Royalty-Free, Rights-Managed, etc)

4) Any more info anywhere?


Thanks for any info.

Paul

[macka]

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.

Edit: Here's One

[NikonUser]

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.

1) I've read the Alamy terms and conditions and I know (I think) that I retain the copyright to the images... I can't find anything else that says if I can/can't keep selling the images.

EDIT... I take that back. It says it's non-exclusive and I may sell images in any other way

2) Alamy is the one I'm looking at 55% is what they pay

3) I know with Alamy that the photographer will be contacted about exclusive use of an image and I guess it's worked out from there.

Paul

[Dug]

ANswers from my own experience and understanding only

1) If I submit an image to a stock agency am I still able to make my own prints and sales of images?

Yes you still have full rights to the image unless you sell those rights as a Rights protected deal.



2) My understanding is that most people send 'seconds' to stock agencies. Is there any reason not to send your best images?

Send everything you think is reasonable and sale-able quality some of my best sales have been from Images I did not consider as "good" but they were Unique so someone wanted them I guess. The more you have the more chance you have of selling. Much like a lottery the more tickets you have the more chance there is of winning a prize.


3) Is there any major legal issues or any copyright issues or anything that a person submitting to a stock agency should know? (I know about Royalty-Free, Rights-Managed, etc)

None I can think of off hand I mark anything unique or unusual as RP Rights Protected. Things that are simple backgrounds shots textures etc I sell as RF Royalty Free.


4) Any more info anywhere?

Learn as you go you will get the hang of it, after your first few sales it becomes a bit addictive. Maybe I just have an Addictive/Gambling thing but I get a buzz out of it.

[gecko]

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

[Dug]

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

I hope you are looking at alamy

[Sheila Smart]

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

[Dug]

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

that is the way it goes pretty much, I looked at OzImages and decided not to go with them because they did not suit me or how I work.

This is the important thing to choose an outlet that suits you and your need and style. There is no one correct answer to this question.

cheers doug

[MHD]

I submit to a micro agency Shutter stock
http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=3356 (yes I do get referal points for that)
I can do whatever I want with my images including submitting them to other agencies!

[TonyH]

I submit to Shutterstock also. Haven't earned a great deal so far but my portfolio or what I'm prepared to allow them access to is small.

Tony

[stubbsy]

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.

[TonyH]

Peter,

it seems as though the guys who submit to the sites where you get a few cents submit to quite a few of those sites and get quite a few thousand dollars a year (if you believe what the members say)

I'm trialling Shutterstock before really getting into it.

Tony

[MHD]

I've made a few hundred through SS (actually quite a few hundred)

MANY people download your images and very few use them in the end...

Basically they down load them just in case...

So instead of selling one image every three months I sell ~6 a day (I have a library of 270: http://shutterstock.com/gallery.mhtml?id=3356 )

Plus submission is bloody easy, no sending in supersized images on CD, just upload...

Anyway, I doubt it is for everyone, but it suits me and has paid for a few toys, and I am not in it for the money and I find the whole microstock thing fun and it does improve my images with constant feedback

[Sheila Smart]

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

[Alpha_7]

Hmmmm, I've never considered submitting any stock photography, but hearing members making money out of it means I could potentially buy more gear if I sold enough shots. Sounds like a good way to support my lust.

Scott how many shots have your sold all up do you reckon ?

[TonyH]

Sheila,

I'd suggest that majority of the images are downloaded in a clipart type manner. The people who buy these images wouldn't engage a professional to provide images for them as they couldn't afford to do so. Mostly their clients web page designers and the like as far as I can gather.

We're not submitting art, just photos.

[Dug]

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

ME three to this

Photography costs money, it is one of the few professions that is also practiced by amateurs. If you are selling images get a fair price for them
or you devalue the whole industry.

I know I am paying a 40% commission on selling my work through Alamy but I can see where that money is being spent on marketing and negotiations etc.

I wonder about the future of selling images every time I see a new 50c download site.

The top price I have been paid for a RF image so far is $388, usually it is around the $200 mark, sometimes a bit less. That is a lot of 50c sales to catch up to that.

[MHD]

hmm good question, I cant seem to find where it tells you anymore...

But for example this image:

Has sold 45 times... (my best seller)

However: THIS WILL NOT BE FOR EVERYONE...

But a few hints: Make sure you submit your best 10 images on signup... otherwise they will reject you and you will not be able to sign up for another few months...

The standards are not to high but some things they will reject images over:
*Visable trademarks or recognisable faces without a model release
*Grainy images, shoot ISO200 where ever possible, be carefull of blue skies...
*Any soft images without a clear point of focus (ie narrow DOF is ok, but must have an appropriate part of image sharp)
*A image they have way to many of already (no my dog rex ones...)

When keywording think of words (honest words) that will sell the image...

[TonyH]

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

[Alpha_7]

With Shuttershock do you have to pay to join (as in to contribute ?)

/scratches head and wonders what photo's would be suitable for stock photograh... *sigh*

[MHD]

No...

[TonyH]

Alpha,

no joining fees, and or membership. As MHD suggested just send 10 great shots and you're off!

Tony

[MHD]

And I tend to think the SS licence favours the photographer...
Here is the basic licence:
from
http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml

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.

[Dug]

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

Agreed in a perfect world things would be different but we don't live in a perfect world. Use what suits you, I use the system that suits me, everyone wants everything and to pay nothing for it, it is just human nature.


cheers doug