jayhai Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 i am thinking about selling my photos, so people can use my images royalty free. I need the money for school, equipment, etc. I was wondering what precautions I should take. Or any good recommendations, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Selling royalty free , eh? Well good luck. You might want to invest in a case of KY jelly first -- just to make what is gonna happen not hurt as much. he truth about selling images royalty free is that there are several tons of competition out there and the images that sell over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again (which is where the money is in the royalty free market) is that you need images which express a clear easily grasped message by lots and lots of people and you need lots and lots (like hundreds if not thousands of these images. Those who succeed at this are virtual factories who have done a lot of market research and know exactly how to fill the needs of those markets. It will also take at least a year if not two or three before you start to recoup your investment in producing these shoots. Also with the big dogs in this market -- Getty, Corbis not to mention virtually every other stock agency on the planet-- as competition the fee you'll receive per image is going to be fractions of a penny on the dollar of every sale. Sorry if you don't like the news from the real world but I think you deserve to know the truth before some sells you some moonbeamed dreams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayhai Posted February 2, 2005 Author Share Posted February 2, 2005 well i imagine i will not recieve much money, but if i could get a few dollars occasionaly , I thought I would look into it, Is it that hard to sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_henderson Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 I don't normally disagree with Ellis but as I have some images with a royalty free library- by way of experiment so to speak - let me share my growing experience. The Agency concerned paid for all the scanning and I got my originals back undamaged in about three months. I didn't much like some aspects of the contract they offered at the outset and so changes were agreed to the contract term; to the commission; and I have the right to market my work independently in the markets most significant to me, and for editorial and publicity purposes. I am restricted in other areas but I wasn't doing anything there anyway. They have presented my work nicely and anonymously (at my request) on CDs which are being marketed on a broad geographical basis through agents and subsiduaries. I have copies of the CDs I should mention that the images I provided did not include my very best work. In general terms they are images that I would not otherwise have achieved income from, or they are "retired" images. I shot nothing specifically for them- they chose from my "back catalogue". I get a quarterly breakdown of sales and commission by image/collection/territory and my contract gives me or a representative the right to inspect their books. I got my first commission about four months after launch and quarterly thereafter. In the first year I have received commission averaging $13 per image for those I have with them- which is more than I'd expect from a much more restrictive arrangement with a traditional-model library. Right now I'd give them more if they asked. Obviously I don't know whether things will continue at that level. Which just goes to show I guess that not all "royalty free" ventures can be tarred with the same brush though I don't deny that there are some nasty businesses out there. Indeed I think that there is merit in supporting new sales methods since it is undoubtably difficult for newcomers to break into the larger agencies using more traditional sales models. In any case these bigger agencies have so many images that its hard to get your work in front of potential clients even if the libary takes your work. I can understand that photographers with an existing heavy commitment to the traditional library model don't much like Royalty Free as a concept. I don't, so I don't share that view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qtluong Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 If you are not going to have a deliberate go at it following Ellis suggestion on the reality of that business, think twice about participating in a business model that is destroying the livehood of many in the industry, just for a financial gain which will be insignificant. <a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com/">Terra Galleria Stock photography</a>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harryo Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 I'm starting to get tired of hearing the same old story from the "seasoned pros"...that us wanaby amatures are eroding their markets. Things change. Get on with it. Change your business model. The "Walmart" of photography is coming and you either adapt or you perish. It's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qtluong Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 David, is there a particular reason you wanted your RF images to be marketed anonymously ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_henderson Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Yes, there was - more a case of a potential issue than a real one though I'd still do the same. Whilst most of my sales are to Corporates I do sell some prints through galleries and through direct enquiries. You never know what's going to happen to your print pricing in future so I didn't want to facilitate some enterprising soul buying a CD or rights to an image or two , getting a few LightJets made and promoting them as prints from photographs by me. The royalty free usage agreement in theory prohibits that sort of thing but I don't think there's an effective sanction in place and I don't think I could rely on the Library to sue. Might not be very likely, but we are supposed to anticipate issues rather than just moan about them afterwards, are we not? I don't think most buyers of stock photography give a damn whose image they've got- so long as it meets their needs - so being in this market anonymously doesn't cost me anything wheras being there under my own name might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 <i><blockquote> I'm starting to get tired of hearing the same old story from the "seasoned pros"...that us wanaby amatures are eroding their markets. Things change. </blockquote> </i><p> Like spelling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 You are welcome to be a "wanabe amateur" for as long as your heart desires and your wallet holds out. Good work will sell and bad work will sell to people with no taste. The "Walmartization" of stock photography has been here for a few years already. some people can make it work for them, others can't and a few others will find a different route to reach the better clients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_laban Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 <a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p><i>"The "Walmartization" of stock photography"</i><p>Nail & head spring to mind ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qtluong Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 David, thanks for the answer. I was curious because that's the first time I heard of a photographer who would not want credit (my contract states an industry-standard 3x fee for credit omission). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan_pike Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 I am currently signed up with shutterstock, i am making around $60 a month and i keep getting that $60 each month for around 100 images. It's a pretty good place to start. if you want to sign up here is a referal link http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=2383 if you sign up with this link i get an extra 3 cents per download and it wont affect your sales at all, but if you dont want to thats ok. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shannon_symons1 Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 You know, I was considering doing much of the same. I'm 100% digital and I have at very least 200 GB of images that are high quality and, even though I don't brag on my work, comparable to anyone else's I think. I didn't realize that until yesterday when I was flipping through my digital album, but I looked at a Shutterfly and compared some of that work and looked online and really mine's not bad. Anyone out there have any idea how to PROPERLY get marketed? Please e-mail me, otherwise I might not get your response: ssymons@netzero.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now