Stock images - Can I send my images elsewhere?

[arsenal74]

I have just had my first batch of images accepted by a stock library

here in the UK (photega) and will shortly be sending in the rest of

my portfolio. This is my first experience with stock and I know it

will be a long haul to make any money (if any at all). <p>

 

My question relates to the exclusivity of my images. I have also

been considering sending in a portfolio of images to the big

magazines here but am wondering whether I am able to send in any of

the images I already have at the stock library. I see lots of the

established pros having their shots published in these mags and I'm

sure these images must surely have gone to other sources too whether

it be a stock library, publisher etc? <p>

 

Excuse my ignorance but I am new to this side of the business. Would

I be breaking the contract I have with the stock library by sending

my images elsewhere? I'm not talking about another stock library but

just magazines or publishers. Whilst not lucrative photography

magazines would be a great medium for getting my work seen by a large

audience, of course it is highly liklely they would turn them down

anyway but you have to think positive!<p>

 

Would appreciate feedback from any shooting pros out there as I'm

sure there is probabaly a very simple answer. <p>

 

Thanks

[mikael_karlsson]

NL:

 

What does your contract with Photega say? Are the images you send to them exclusive to them [Photega] or are you free to market to others? It should be in the contract. If it isn't the contract you have with Photega is way too vague and should be renegotatied, especially if you want to be able to market and license images on your own.

 

Hope that helps.

[enlightened-images]

The above poster is absolutely correct; Everything depends on what your contract says. If you want to do photography as a business, then ignorance is no excuse, except when you fail. Sorry if I sound harsh, but this is EXACTLY what you should have known BEFORE you signed your agency contract.<br>

<br>

Gary Crabbe<br>

<a href="http://www.enlightphoto.com">Enlightened Images</a>

[enlightened-images]

Sorry - Need to add an additional rant; This post highlights why the business of photography is so difficult these days. So many 'wanna-bees' are so happy that anyone would want to do anything with their photos, that people say OK first, and sign contracts not knowing what they're getting into, or more likely, what they're giving away.<br>

<br>

If you want to do photography as a business, think and act like a business person. Do your homework first! If you wanted to climb Mount Everest, would you just slap on some boots & a jacket and just start walking? Wouldn't you rather consider taking classes and learning all you can about mountaineering equipment and survival first? Why should entering into a business based on your 'art' be any different?<br>

<br>

End Rant.<br>

<br>

Gary Crabbe<br>

<a href="http://www.enlightphoto.com">Enlightened Images</a>

[mark feldstein]

As Mikael says, the principal question is what does your written agreement with the stock agency say? If it's silent on that issue, you should be alright in marketing those same images to another possible seller or user or agency, but then you have a different sort of two-prong dilemma. One is a moral-ethical issue, and if I were you, I would notify the original agency of your intent to continue to market the images on your own. Some agencies have an "exclusivity " clause written into the stock agreement that should be specific as to the length of time it operates. That would restrict your ability to either market and/or sell the images they have of your work, to anyone else.

 

The second problem is one that arises when one stock agency contracts with you to market and sell specific images for a specific period of time AND for a specific usage, e.g., first european publication rights. If you sell an image to another entity that publishes it before the first agency has an opportunity to sell it, the value to the original agency goes down because then their publication usage rights become secondary so the value to their buyer at that point is less.

 

Then there's the other obvious collateral issue of whether you're inadvertently or deliberately placing one agency or client in a potential bidding war with another agency or client for use of your work. If that happens, in all likelihood, both agencies would drop your representation.

 

As far as using those images for self-promotion, say to magazines to get assignments, that's not a problem if you're not offering them the right to publish. Take it light. Mark

[rcox2]

Seems pretty clear from the Photega website:

 

Please read the following specifications very carefully if you wish to be successful in placing images with the Photega Image Library:

 

1 Image Exclusivity

Photega only accept images that are exclusive to Photega and not similar to, or seconds of, other images you may wish to supply to any other Library. Please refer to the Terms & Conditions which are attached to the Application Form.

[rcox2]

Seems pretty clear from the Photega website: <br>

 

Please read the following specifications very carefully if you wish to be successful in placing images with the Photega Image Library: <br>

 

1 Image Exclusivity <br>

Photega only accept images that are exclusive to Photega and not similar to, or seconds of, other images you may wish to supply to any other Library. Please refer to the Terms & Conditions which are attached to the Application Form.

[rcox2]

Image Exclusivity<br>

You agree to exclusively licence Images to Photega to be made available

to Customers on the Web Site. You must not submit Images that are

identical to, similar to, or seconds of images which you have currently

supplied or licensed to any other person or agency and you further agree

that you shall not supply or licence to any other person or agency. We do

not accept Images that you also sell, or wish to sell privately (such as

prints from the same original), or Images that have, or will be, used on

products distributed by third parties or on your behalf.

If we find any Photega Images breach these Terms and Conditions this will

lead to the removal of all your Images from the Web Site. Image files that

are not accepted or are removed by Photega will not be returned to you,

except at your request and expense.

You may use Photega Images submitted by you for your own marketing

purposes but only on receipt of written permission of Photega.

[qtluong]

Gary, the difference between attempting Mt Everest and attempting to sell a few images (presumably as a side "business") is that there is no consequences with failure. <a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com">Terra Galleria Photography</a>.

[enlightened-images]

QTL: It's just a metaphor, OK.<br>

<br>

Richard: Nice work pulling up that info. I can say for sure that there's NO WAY IN HECK that I'd ever sign a contract like that. An absolutely perfect example of my earlier point; that unless you know what you are signing, you have no clue what you're giving away.<br>

<br>

Gary Crabbe<br>

<a href="http://www.enlightphoto.com">Enlightened Images</a>

[arsenal74]

Thanks for all the responses, if I may say so some seem a bit harsh, but hey

it's all about opinion. <p>

 

So far they only have 10 of my images. I am due to upload more but have not

decided for sure yet as to whether I will. <p>

 

I have no intention of posting with another stock library. I would however like

to send a sample portfolio to some of photography magazines as the money/

prizes are reasonable and the exposure excellent (we all read them after all

don't we?) I am also working on a personal project and these images will go

knowehere until it is finished. <p>

 

I'll admit to some naivity but it's not I have signed my life away here. I have

seen the paragraph from photega mentioned above but this was par for the

course for the ones I saw, unless that was I was prepared to pay for the

privilidge of uploading my shots or used one of the big boys (Alamy,getty etc) .

I shoot 35mm and digital (Olympus E1) and after some technical rejections

from alamy I was pleased to make what seemed like a positive first step for

me, my main photography income comes from weddings so I cannot invest in

MF gear to compete at Alamy or Corbis (I know a lot of people shoot

weddings with MF gear but for me digital pays and the E1 is excellent) nor

am I anywhere near the funds needed for a 1DS mk2. I have dipped my feet

in the water so to speak with these 10 images but am not totally decided on

what the best route is to progress my non wedding work. I am naive but I

suppose most are when they start out <p>

 

Thanks again and please keep the views coming they are appreciated.

[qtluong]

Gary, metaphor or not, my point is that you are going to see that behavior proliferate precisely because for the people who do it, there are few consequences and they don't feel like they are "signing their life away".

<p>

Unfortunately, if enough people do it, there are consequences for the industry as a whole. This is a bit like littering: how can an empty can of beer make a difference ? If everybody starts throwing out theirs everywhere, it soon does.

<p>

NL, educate yourself to become part of the solution, not of the problem. The immense majority of images on corbis, getty and most agencies are in 35mm. Value your own work regardless of the format you use.

<p>

<a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com/">Terra Galleria stock photography</a>

[rubens_abboud]

NL,

<p>You will find agencies & portals broadly categorized as either "image-exclusive" or "non-exclusive". This is an important aspect of the contract you will sign with them because -- as you have found out -- it can limit further distribution of your work.</p>

<p>Selling stock has a lot to do with marketing and distribution. Images are needed all over the world, but unless clients see yours, you will not make sales. So, the wider you can spread your images, the more likely you will see income from them.</p>

<p>When you sign with an exclusive agency, you need to ask a lot of questions regarding their ability to market and distribute your material because you are effectively tying up your images with them for the duration of your contract (which is often from 3 to 7 years). Are they plugged into the major ad agencies, publishers, etc...? Do they advertise in trade publications? What are their main selling categories? Do they sell through sub-agents? If so, what would your commission be then? How long have they been in business? Remember, if your exclusive agency does not perform, your images will rot for the duration of your contract! So you want to ask as many questions as it will take to make you comfortable that your agency has a good chance of selling your work.</p>

<p>Selecting a non-exclusive agency (like Alamy and many others) can be a little looser because you can continue to market your work elsewhere or by yourself. If the agency does not perform, you are always free to place your images at another place or sell them yourself. </p>

<p>If you are only starting out in stock, I would recommend you seek non-exclusive agencies/portals initially (one or more) until you gain enough experience to properly evaluate the risks/rewards of working with exclusive outfits. </p>

<p>One other aspect you need to consider are agency/portal costs. A lot of successful agencies/portals will ask for a 25% to 50% commission on sales only and will charge you *NO* administration or ongoing bogus fees. I would be suspicious of any agency that takes a 50% commission *AND* wants to eventually charge administration fees (like Photega after Jan 2006).</p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>

<p>Best regards,</p>

<p>Rubens.<br>

<a href="http://www.TheImageNation.com">http://www.TheImageNation.com</a><br>

Travel stock photography<br>

</p>