Scoopt - Photojournalism stock agency

[jean_marc_liotier]

<p>A few weeks ago I posted a question about <a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DgcK">what

a lucky amateur at the right place at the right time can do with his

pictures</a>. The answers were mostly to contact directly a major

agency if it is a scoop of probably more than national importance, or

to go through a local newspaper otherwise.</p>

<p>Today on Photo.net I stumbled on an advertising for <a

href="http://www.scoopt.com/">Scoopt</a>, a sort of photojournalism

stock online agency.</p>

<p>Their own blurb says : "Scoopt is a media agency that has been

created specifically to help members of the public sell photographs

and videos of newsworthy events to the press. We bridge the gap

between amateur photographer - and by 'amateur', we means anybody with

a digital camera or a cameraphone who just happens to be in the right

place at the right time - and picture desk" [..] "you automatically

grant us an exclusive worldwide licence to market that photo for a

period of three months" [..] "Each and every time we make a sale, you

get 50% of the proceeds".

</p>

<p>The terms and conditions do not seem unreasonable and so does the

50% cut. But then again I have never had any experience with any of

the traditional channels.</p>

<p>

So, what is your opinon about Scoopt ?

</p>

[keith_van_hulle1]

50%? If you just want to do this, sounds fine. But if you value your work, there's probably better avenues. Get the book Photographer's Market 2005 and do some research. You'll find that, at 50%, you're being had.

[jean_marc_liotier]

I guess that 50% is a scam as far as professionals are concerned - but what about the amateurs who do not have access to sales channels that require building relationships wiithin a professional network ?

 

I do not have anything to sell at the moment, but I am quite curious about that market.

[mikael_karlsson]

Jean-Marc:

 

50% is pretty much standard as far as agencies are concerned and not a scam at all. But when dealing with an agency you have to ask the question: 50% of what? If they regularly license images for $250 and up 50% isn't bad. If they license images for $1, 50% stinks... There are agencies that offer a bigger cut (like Alamy) and those that offer a smaller cut.

 

There are lots of agencies out there. Search them until you find one that matches the kind of images you produce. Before signing on, look at it as any other business agreement and check them out. Ask for references etc.

 

Hope that helps.

[dave_osborne]

I'll second that 50% is a pretty much standard split from an agency. Nothing scammy there at all.

[dai_hunter]

In the aftermath of the 7/11 bombings in London there was a by-stander who shot some footage of one of the siege / arrests. He was persuaded by an un-named "MEDIA OUTLET" [NOT a broker like Scoopt] to sell not only use rights but the copyright itself.

 

He realised a pretty much substantial one-off payment but they just turned around and syndicated it and had their money back +++ in hours.

 

50% of the overall down line syndication value would have been a lot better for him than that one-off payment and loss of the copyright.

 

Did he have second thoughts and ultimately voice regrets that he sold it that way? You bet! He KNOWS [now] that he was ripped off for the true value of it.

 

Hunter

[dean_tomasula1]

They are no better than the penny stock agencies. Any agency that will sell amateur photos taken with a camera phone is to be avoided at all costs, unless you'd like to get a reputation as a rank amateur and never be taken seriously.

[jean_marc_liotier]

<p>

Dean Tomasula wrote :</br>

> They are no better than the penny stock agencies. Any agency that will sell amateur</br>

> photos taken with a camera phone is to be avoided at all costs, unless you'd like to</br>

> get a reputation as a rank amateur and never be taken seriously.</br>

</p>

<p>

Well that is precisely the point: I am a rank amateur and proud of it. I understand that my point of view may seem completely alien to professional photographers who are building a carreer. I have absolutely no plan whatsoever to make a living from photography - I even refuse to shoot my friend's weddings for money so that I can shoot them for free and keep freely enjoying my hobby. I am pretty sure I am not alone in that case. People like me do not expect to be taken seriously. We are ready to trade a chunk of raw margin against the comfort of not having to deal with the marketing side of photography - we do not want to invest time in marketing precisely because we are amateurs with a completely unrelated full time job, so pennies on the side are better than nothing at all.

</p>

<p>

And about the camera phones : don't forget that in photojournalism a bad pictures is better than no picture at all. I don't like camera phones but there are literally hundreds of millions of people who carry them every day and statistically they are going to be lucky.

</p>