| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/23/2004 05:58:11 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Those who don't understand the market for royalty free stock photography often make the comment you just made. There are different types of buyers who buy rights managed images.
I don't look at my royalty free stock as penny images. I look at it as (currently) $500-$600 a year that I wouldn't have had otherwise. |
Um..., Yes, I do understand what Royalty Free market is Royalty Free Rights on Shutterstock.com
In magazines, newspapers, books, eBooks, pamphlets, brochures, catalogs, book covers, textbooks, editorials, toolbar skins, posters, mobile phones, pagers, CD/DVD cover art, and advertising.
In connection with your business identity on letterhead, posters, brochures, or business cards.
Stock photo may be reproduced at most 150,000 items. Reproductions of over 150,000 require a special license.
So if you sell your photo, lets say, for $.50 i can buy it and put it on a cd cover that sells up to 150,000 copies, and never give you photo credit. sounds pretty crappy to me.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2004 06:02:35 PM · #27 |
You could, yes. Or that same image could sit on my harddrive, untouched.
As I said in the other thread awhile ago - Lise has made $20,000 on Istock. $20,000 she did not have. $20,000 is more than all my gear put together is worth. With that much money, I'd be much further ahead in my business.
M
|
|
|
|
11/23/2004 06:03:11 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Those who don't understand the market for royalty free stock photography often make the comment you just made. There are different types of buyers who buy rights managed images.
I don't look at my royalty free stock as penny images. I look at it as (currently) $500-$600 a year that I wouldn't have had otherwise. |
Um..., Yes, I do understand what Royalty Free market is Royalty Free Rights on Shutterstock.com
In magazines, newspapers, books, eBooks, pamphlets, brochures, catalogs, book covers, textbooks, editorials, toolbar skins, posters, mobile phones, pagers, CD/DVD cover art, and advertising.
In connection with your business identity on letterhead, posters, brochures, or business cards.
Stock photo may be reproduced at most 150,000 items. Reproductions of over 150,000 require a special license.
So if you sell your photo, lets say, for $.50 i can buy it and put it on a cd cover that sells up to 150,000 copies, and never give you photo credit. sounds pretty crappy to me. |
Like I'm going to be hired to take a picture with my point and shooter. Almost $12.00 from shutterstock:) $0 from dpcprints:(
If one has the gear and equipment to take pictures that can make more $$ then I wouldn't settle for $.20 but some of us don't so $.20 is good enough for me.
Message edited by author 2004-11-23 18:04:33. |
|
|
|
11/23/2004 06:16:48 PM · #29 |
Oh well.
I just wanted to put in my 2 cents. take it or leave it. you just might be upset if you see your photo printed in some magazine somewhere, and there is no credit line given to you, or maybe you won't.
Just keep in mind: a photo makes everything look better. A website, a magazine, a CD, a brochure, etc...
photos help sell someones services or products. A photographer should get paid fairly. $.20 or $.50 is not a fair price.
You can go to istockphoto and for $1.50 buy a big, beautiful photo and get it printed at your local photostore to hang on your wall. Only $1.50 (plus the cost of the print = $14.10 for a 20x30 here at DPC)! so for $15.60, I can buy any 20x30 print on istockphoto.com! (the original photographer will only make $.75 but who cares about the photographer, right?)
|
|
|
|
11/23/2004 06:17:11 PM · #30 |
//www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=162596
This is lise's profile.
Total iStockphoto Uploads: 1334
Total iStockphoto Downloads: 103944
Member since April 2003
|
|
|
|
11/23/2004 06:24:16 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Oh well.
I just wanted to put in my 2 cents. take it or leave it. you just might be upset if you see your photo printed in some magazine somewhere, and there is no credit line given to you, or maybe you won't.
Just keep in mind: a photo makes everything look better. A website, a magazine, a CD, a brochure, etc...
photos help sell someones services or products. A photographer should get paid fairly. $.20 or $.50 is not a fair price.
You can go to istockphoto and for $1.50 buy a big, beautiful photo and get it printed at your local photostore to hang on your wall. Only $1.50 (plus the cost of the print = $14.10 for a 20x30 here at DPC)! so for $15.60, I can buy any 20x30 print on istockphoto.com! (the original photographer will only make $.75 but who cares about the photographer, right?) |
I still agree with this position
|
|
|
|
11/23/2004 06:38:02 PM · #32 |
You also have to look at the indirect exposure and experience gained from stock photography.
I got a HUGE photography contract from a major US publishing company due to my stock portfolios. So I'll be flighing to the states all expenses paid for 5 days of shooting and making muchas $$$. That'll pay for ALL of my studio equipment and then some!!!
It's all a question of exposure. Yes I only get $0.20 per download but... :-)
|
|
|
|
11/23/2004 06:38:25 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Oh well.
I just wanted to put in my 2 cents. take it or leave it. you just might be upset if you see your photo printed in some magazine somewhere, and there is no credit line given to you, or maybe you won't. |
You can always put in your 3 cents too :P
Message edited by author 2004-11-23 18:38:39. |
|
|
|
11/23/2004 06:43:53 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Oh well.
I just wanted to put in my 2 cents. take it or leave it. you just might be upset if you see your photo printed in some magazine somewhere, and there is no credit line given to you, or maybe you won't. |
You can always put in your 3 cents too :P |
LOL!!!! Now now now... be nice....
|
|
|
|
11/23/2004 07:58:31 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
.....What bugs you about these stock sites?.... |
What bugs me the most is the way they work the payouts to the photogrpahers. I've heard the debate about hurting conventional stock photographers and am not very sympathetic. These sites are a logical developement following on the heels of the explosion in digital and the internet. Get used to it. But why can't they pay the photogs on a current basis? Why not send out checks monthly, or quarterly, to all who have earned $10 or more, instead of sitting on the photogs earnings until they reach $100. Who ever heard of a business where the retailer didn't have to pay in full to their suppliers? I think they are using the photogs share to capitalize their enterprise. And I also think that an awful lot of the photogs who submit will never reach $100, or will lose interest and drift away, leaving the site operators to keep their money and their images. The extremely low price per download seems unavoidable if people are willing to let their images go for that amount, but at least set it up fairly so that the photogs really do receive their small earnings.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2004 08:16:58 PM · #36 |
| I don't plan to put my best images up on any of the stock sites. I noticed alot of the shots that are stock are usually photos I would never put up for print. |
|
|
|
11/23/2004 08:21:55 PM · #37 |
Your analysis of the business model is correct. The sit on the earnings because that's what's needed to make it work successfully -- MP3.com ran exactly the same way with music files, and publishers who pay authors/composers quarterly are in a similar place. I think that's how most of the "art" world probably works; in this case the power rests not with the means of production, but with complete control of the distribution/marketing chain. That's the stranglehold on the market these new sites are competing with, seeing if there's an alternative market available.
I believe Shutterstock does plan a complete payout of closed accounts, but I can't blame them for not wanting to process payments below some threshold; we all accepted $100, although maybe $25 would be better ...
Now why is it banks changed the law and can now transmit a request for payment from your bank electronically, depriving you of the 1-5 day "float" we've enjoyed for the last 100 years or so? I always enjoyed paying the rent with the bank's money (for a couple of days). |
|
|
|
11/23/2004 08:34:10 PM · #38 |
| $112 at DPCPrints. Good enough for me, considering I get to sell them at a FAIR price and get to decide on that price. I give away enough of my pics and prints as it is. I think 20 cents is still insulting and hurting ALL photographers in the end. Especially when alot of people here and who are uploading have exceptional talent and photos, are definitely WAY UNDERSELLING themselves. |
|
|
|
11/23/2004 09:05:13 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Your analysis of the business model is correct. The sit on the earnings because that's what's needed to make it work successfully -- MP3.com ran exactly the same way with music files, and publishers who pay authors/composers quarterly are in a similar place. I think that's how most of the "art" world probably works; in this case the power rests not with the means of production, but with complete control of the distribution/marketing chain. That's the stranglehold on the market these new sites are competing with, seeing if there's an alternative market available.
I believe Shutterstock does plan a complete payout of closed accounts, but I can't blame them for not wanting to process payments below some threshold; we all accepted $100, although maybe $25 would be better ...
Now why is it banks changed the law and can now transmit a request for payment from your bank electronically, depriving you of the 1-5 day "float" we've enjoyed for the last 100 years or so? I always enjoyed paying the rent with the bank's money (for a couple of days). |
I understand what you're saying and generally agree. But there should be a more balanced trade off. Twenty cents a shot really is rock bottom. But the quality of images that dpc photogs are supplying them with is any thing but rock bottom. These site owners sure tapped into gold mine of talent here at dpc.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2004 09:44:40 PM · #40 |
| And, as soon as an economically viable option that provides the balance between value and payout exists, a lot of people would probably switch. But, as many threads have pointed out, there isn't one. There is the big three, expensive, difficult to get into options, or the cheap ones. I'm quite surprised with all the photographers complaining about this business model, that they haven't created an option on their own, so all photography is not devalued. |
|
|
|
11/23/2004 10:04:17 PM · #41 |
First, hi folks... long time no see! i see that the stock debate rages on... i still am with the camp that says heck no. for me personally. what you do with your photos is up to you. obviously there are some who have got a great thing going on at istock etc., to you i say congrats!
which is really the reason for this post. i just browsed through istock for the first time in quite awhile.
LISE!!! holy cow! great work! i hope your earnings grow exponentially (sp?) very soon. looks to me like you deserve it! get an agent! keep shooting! |
|
|
|
11/23/2004 10:26:29 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
$112 at DPCPrints. Good enough for me, considering I get to sell them at a FAIR price and get to decide on that price. I give away enough of my pics and prints as it is. I think 20 cents is still insulting and hurting ALL photographers in the end. Especially when alot of people here and who are uploading have exceptional talent and photos, are definitely WAY UNDERSELLING themselves. |
I have 30 dollars at DPCPrints in almost two years. I almost have more than that from stock sales in under a month with less images. I dont have a full time paying job and unfortunately a very expensive hobby. At the end of the year I will likely make more money from stock than from selling prints. I would prefer to make money from prints but currently that isnt happening so 20 cents is better than what I'm currently getting.
I think a lot of people are in a similar position. They cant sell 145 dollars in prints and they cant sell to the professional stock agencies either. As with most hobbies some people make a little extra on the side and this is exactly the opportunity that stock offers.
There is under selling and there is not selling at all.
Message edited by author 2004-11-23 22:27:39. |
|
|
|
11/23/2004 10:45:32 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
...
Should we start our own stock site and only let dpc members be apart of it? I think so!
...
Soni |
Let's do it! Maybe we could have an option where we check any (or all!) of what's in a portfolio and D&L make it downloadable (for a price, of course) as stock... That would save the upload time.
Now, what about approval? Or do we allow anything?? |
There are very strict rules about what is and isn't allowed as a stock photo - no brand names, for example. So a lot of photos that are acceptable for dpcprints cannot be used as stock. As an example, this one:
would only be acceptable at istock with all text and logos removed, though shutterstock and dreamstime have accepted it with the words 'savings bank' left in.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2004 11:08:47 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
So if you sell your photo, lets say, for $.50 i can buy it and put it on a cd cover that sells up to 150,000 copies, and never give you photo credit. sounds pretty crappy to me. |
This is true. It's how the market works. However, larger companies who are serious about their advertising will not buy royalty free stock. Most often, they have their own photographers who produce EXACTLY what they want for their print and other media. For companies who use a lot of photography, it's cheaper for them to have staff photographers who do the work than to pay large sums of money for rights restricted usage of the images. They want UNIQUE images. Coca-Cola would not buy a photo on a royalty-free website for use in their advertising. U2 would not put a royalty free image on a CD cover. Yes... they COULD if they wanted to. If they do, I hope they buy one of mine so I can get my few cents....
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/05/2025 05:31:19 PM EDT.
