Stock Photography

<p> Is anybody still making money in Stock photography or is the market over saturated ?</p>

<p>Yes, the market for stock is saturated. Yes, some people make good money working in that area because they've established a particular style, or access to unusual subject matter, or are producing a huge volume of top quality work and are smart enough to deal with keywording, licensing, and the related administrative/marketing chores in a way that completely eclipses the casual $1/photo dabblers.<br /><br />When most people ask your question, what they're really asking is, "Can I put in a casual hobby-level amount of effort in posting some of my snapshots and expect to get a bunch of cash out of it?" And the answer is "no." If what you're really asking is, "Can I start up a complex, team-based business that works tirelessly at cultivating marketing relationships, collections, and flawlessly handling all of the accompanying paperwork and IP issues, along with being uniquely innovative and endlessly creative, with a finger directly on the pulse of <em>this week's</em> trends in commercial image use, and expect to make money?" ... then the answer is, "maybe." Because at that point you're running a challenging business in a very competitive market, and <em>most businesses fail</em><em> </em>because most people are no good at running businesses. </p>

<p>Great answer Matt. thanks</p>

<blockquote>

<p>access to unusual subject matter</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

These days, "access" is critical. You can buy high quality photographs of almost anything for pennies, but shots that most shooters can't get to are what can make money now. For a number of years, I sold professional fight photos as stock and did well because most people couldn't sit ringside or cage-side and shoot, and most of the people who did weren't in a position to sell their photos independently. It's similar for people with access to small planes, although drones are changing that, areas that have restricted access, etc. Anything with easy access, particularly if there are no restrictions, isn't going to be very successful.</p>

<p>Have had some recent success through Alamy sales with the theme of diversity.</p>

<p>Harry, FWIW, I used to want to shoot stock, back in the '90s. By the time I could really get going, it was too late. However, shooting stock is fun, regardless. So now I am building a collection of CCA* licensed images that I'm putting on Flickr.</p>

<p>* CCA = Creative Commons, Attribution license, which means the images can be used for any reason by any party, without royalties or payments, as long as the photographer is credited.</p>

<p>I still do fairly well with it but I shoot really hard to get access to niches and even then, present the work in a non-public access, password protected website. It's not like it used to be though when I could pull in 10-20K per month.<br /> <br /> The statement above of producing work for a photo credit is ironically hilarious since I have actually had art directors using a shot in an ad ask me if I want one and I say HELL NO since I don't want wannabes poking around my work, LOL!<br>

A photo credit is not valuable anymore Karim...you know that, right?</p>

You might be interested n reading this. Keep in mind he definitely does not take anything close to generic images, his

photos are so beautiful, precise, and evocative that they are in a sense, iconic. http://arstechnica.com/tech-

policy/2014/09/one-mans-endless-hopeless-struggle-to-protect-his-copyrighted-images/

<p>I sell stock, mostly through Getty. I don't concentrate on it, mainly because it is too fiddly for me and my style of working. The payments are small, but I still get consistent usage. I recently had a sale in the mid four figures, but after everyone took their cut, my % wasn't that great.<br /> One thing that will always sell is 'model-released lifestyle' imagery. It has to be extremely well produced, and you have to shoot a lot of it, but there is still room to make money there. I agree with Matt's assessment.</p>

Ellis, wow, that is heartbreaking. I don't doubt I lose a fair bit of exposure and income from not having a web

presence....but man am I *much* happier in my work that way. And the really good thing about it is that I have people

looking out for me, clients, friends, networking, so I don't think I lose out too much.

 

But to just throw in the towel like that poor guy, well let's just say if I ever had to give it up as a career I would give

photography period. Otherwise it would just be too hard to cope with...

<blockquote>

<p>A photo credit is not valuable anymore Karim...you know that, right?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If it isn't valuable now, I'm not sure how it could have been valuable before. But it depends on the photographer. If someone else has published my work, it means to me that I have made something useful.</p>

<p>The greatest honour a photographer can have is for other people to see his work - people use Flickr (and PN) to show their work, not merely to store it. After that: his name under a photo that some complete stranger decided was good enough for their magazine, book, site, whatever. I'll never say no to a dollar honestly earned, either!</p>

<p>The first money I earned from photography was from writing about photography (I wrote an illustrated article - slightly inaccurate as it turned out - about a series of Leica cameras). Yes, the cheque was great, but the fact that someone published my work and thought it worth paying for made me very, very happy indeed. Back when that occurred, you were probably earning the five figure amount per month that you mentioned. You would have looked at the amount on the cheque and thought, "Oh, how cute!". My point is that the money per se didn't make me happy, the success did.</p>

<p>Ellis, thanks for the link. I imagine Alex Wild's story is not unique. I do believe that a solution exists - but that is for Edward de Bono to solve. I think he could, if he were asked. Here's a possible solution: legislate so that the copyright holder can insist that the website of the infringing party be shut down indefinitely until the issue is resolved. I'm not saying that will help. But I am saying that if I can think of something at least superficially interesting, greater minds can go further.</p>

<p>And BTW, I have seen for myself how some people don't even credit the photographer when they use CCA images! I mean, of all the unncessarily selfish things to do... I can understand the type of primitive, raw selfishness that makes someone not want to pay for a photo. But to refuse to credit him?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>One thing that will always sell is 'model-released lifestyle' imagery</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very well said. Soon, that might be the only type of stock worth creating (it probably is).</p>

But that's the thing Karim, a photo credit used to be important for exposure...now the wrong kind of exposure can be

leathal for a business. People who use photos for free with the promise of a photo credit and "It will be good exposure"

are simply taking advantage of all the amatuers that are practically tripping over each other for that photo credit.

 

If it is so important to you that as a hobby shooter your work has value beyond the fact you do it for your self as so many

amateur camera owners claim, then the *only* way to know that value has been reciprocated is that you got paid, period!

 

Otherwise, it is one big game of amatuer camera owners reveling in the sharing aspect of living in the now but living in the

past as to it's actual societal and financial value.

 

If you throw a party at your modest home and 35 people show up, I'd say it's likely to be a great party. But if 3,000 people show up in

the same sized house....well my friend, like the prospect of easy money with stock or an amatuer camera owner earning a

dime with their photography....?...the party is over.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant,

Daniel. In that sense ("But think of the

EXPOSURE!") you are right. However,

I wouldn't work for someone who can

afford to pay me but won't. Some

suckers will, but I won't.

 

Even worse, who in their right mind

would take on an assignment which

actually costs then money to get there?

The power of insecurity and grand

promises... The same insecurity that

leads people to photo competitions

("Think of the exposure!") or

photography 'degrees'. Well, that's a

rant for another time.

 

Mark Bosnich, goalkeeper for Australia,

Aston Villa, Manchester United and

Chelsea, said on a talk show that after

a while, the money he was earning

ceased to become relevant. But for a

professional footballer like him, playing

in England was more about the

"exposure" (his word) that you could

not get in the Australian league.

 

His type of exposure is obviously not

the same as the type we're discussing.

But what is worth noting is that

exposure = paycheck. He didn't have

to swap one for the other.

 

So the best exposure that a photographer can get -

if he wants it - is a high-profile job. The

stills photographer for 'The Matrix' can

get work anywhere, anytime, thanks to

that gig. Being an official White House

photographer could be a similar thing.

 

So my reasons for putting some

images under CCA is mainly for fun

and satisfaction. I take pride in my work. The exposure is not a

bad thing, either. :-)

<p>"“<em>If you don’t want your work infringed, don’t post it.</em>”"</p>

<p>What do you expect for free. Well almost free. One thing I learned about Stock is that it is pretty general. I mean a picture can be as Universal as it can be, but it still wont stir the emotions as an image that is personal. <br>

Just give your grandmother a stack of your best images and she will be drawn to the picture(s) she can relate to good or bad. Stock is about selling a product. I think there is still hope for stock photography as long as the audience is moved by the image meaning "Niche" , but why should some agency get a cut while you can do it yourself.</p>

<p>A most interesting question and some very perceptive answers, particularly the first one from Matt. The proliferation of digital photography has obliterated many areas of the photography business which professionals used to call their own and rendered many assumptions obsolete. It used to be the case, for example, that a photographer could reasonably expect an income of $1 per picture and year from work placed with a picture library, and also that in certain circumstances exposure of one's work, even if for no money, would lead to paid assignments, neither of which holds true today. What is more, the story linked by Ellis shows how even somebody whose work has a definite USP and cannot be replicated by someone with an auto-everything camera can get so badly ripped off that they want to quit (perhaps a truly savage approach to copyright infringement might have saved the day, but who wants to spend more time talking to lawyers than shooting?)<br>

My personal attitude to all this is that I could earn money from stock only if I abandoned my quirky approach and photographed much more mainstream "lifestyle" subjects such as impossibly attractive young couples grinning inanely while surrounded by designer-label goods and also if I were willing to put a much lower price on a hour of my time than I do at present as a translator. Rates in general are painful - the last press job I did was about 15 years ago, it came from a local government official with whom I had other business, and I quoted £15 an hour (1/4 of my usual rate) thinking that it would be nice to have an afternoon out of the office. The client was very pleased and made use of the pictures for a number of purposes in addition to the agreed one, nonetheless I did gain the impression that she did consider me outrageously expensive (i got no more jobs). As a sideline, I did attempt to cultivate the UK "Amateur Photographer" magazine and sold them a handful of articles, which were well received and published with virtually not a single word changed. It was only afterwards that I noticed that the whole process was taking 3 or 4 times as long as my "day job" and was hopelessly uneconomic.<br>

To return specifically to stock photography, I would suggest that this can be attractive to a young person who would like to continue backpacking for a while longer than normal - such a person would have access to exotic locations and might well be able to live on less money. Aside from that, stock photography must surely be of interest only to keen amateurs who are happy to cover what they see as their expenses and do not need to take a rigorous approach to cost accounting.<br>

My three priorities as a 65-year-old photographer who started at the age of 5 or so are:<br>

1) Taking quirky pictures<br>

2) Small-scale camera collecting<br>

3) Discussing/giving advice on older cameras/wet-process photography to anyone who is interested.<br>

In short, therapeutic activities. Stock photography does not fit into this in any way.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"“<em>If you don’t want your work infringed, don’t post it.</em>”"</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The author of the article in which this appeared pointed out why he thought this was the wrong approach to copyright infringement. There is another reason. Many, maybe most or virtually all, photos sold these days are used on the web by the client. Having a website isn't a factor - these can easily be downloaded and used elsewhere. I have one photo that I have found on over 100 unlicensed websites. I didn't put it up on my website until there were so many instances on the web that it didn't make sense for me not to put it up. I use the website to prove copyright, although I gave up a few years ago given the amount of time it was taking and low rate of success getting people to respond. DMCA takedowns worked in a few cases, but the web image was used in posters too. The point is that keeping images off the web serves no purpose if clients are buying images for web images. If the images are not salable, there probably isn't going to be much infringement.</p>

<p>I've tried it a few times,spend quite a bit of time doing the whole uploading, tagging keywords, waiting a few weeks to be approved. I have loaded around 15 photos to istock and make about $2.30 in the past year. No doubt if you spend a lot more time and add a lot more content you can make some more money, I find however the time it takes to book and shoot paid jobs pays off far more than stock libraries.<br>

<b>Signature URLs removed. Not allowed per photo.net Terms of Use.</b></p>