Stock distributors: need opinions and guidance

[demianov]

<p>Oh, boy... I sure hope I won't get into no trouble for mentioning a few "company names"...<br /><br />Stock distributors are not real agencies per se. They claim to have the ability of reaching the markets unreachable by the giants. One thing they do is simply act as a middleman between the sharks and the small fish (not a very good comparison, I know)<br /><br />Some of the "distributors", however, work directly with the photographer. The photographer signs a contract, supplies the material and that "distributor" starts trafficking the stuff. They don't do any selling themselves but rather channel the material to the agencies that do the selling. Sometimes the images end up at all sorts questionable establishments.<br /><br />I didn't come here to teach the business of stock photography. Just wanted to make sure that I got it right and that we were on the same page. Now is the time to start asking my questions.<br /><br />About half a year ago I stumbled across an agency named: imagebroker (http://www.imagebroker.net/) It's a "distributor" based in Germany. I got a pretty good impression from their site as well as from the short correspondence I've had with them. I've never done business with any of the microstock outlets therefore Imagebroker seemed like something right up my alley. They had answered all my questions to my satisfaction and I decided to give them a try later on. To explain my situation...<br />I've had my photos on Alamy's site for years. They've landed me a few sales, nothing worthwhile, but then I hardly had anything on there. Now my collection is growing rapidly and I'm looking to expand. My own site should be up and running in 5-6 months (probably photoshelter) and I'm planning to begin supplying to Corbis. I have little doubt they'd be interested. There are many other things that I will be doing to promote and sell my material. Right now I'm at the post-production stage.<br /><br />Imagebroker seems like the right thing to do to receive additional exposure plus it looks like they're expanding. If they're doing that it's probably going well for them. So has anyone worked with imagebroker? What was the experience like? Do THEY host the originals or do they actually transfer the full res files to the agencies they sell through? This sounds like a stupid question but I have to be 100% sure they are the only ones who keep the originals.<br />I'd love to read the contract I'd have to sign with them... what can be done about it? I think I've asked them to email it to me but they said no. I'm not a 100% on that though, it was awhile ago and I'm on a new system now with my old emails gone.<br /><br />So the big question is: can anyone recommend imagebroker? (to me or anyone else)<br />Is there a better alternative? Are there agencies similar to imagebroker that can (and should) be used in addition to everything that I'll be doing? When I say "similar" I mean macrostock distributors "on the level". Ones who offer good exposure, good commission to the suppliers with no fishy stuff in the contract. At this point I should say that about 60% of my material is Rights Managed with the rest being RF.<br /><br />Would love to receive some guidance on the subject.</p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>This sounds like a stupid question but I have to be 100% sure they are the only ones who keep the originals.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Who keeps the originals is not the the issue.<br>

Who controls the licensing and sub licensing <strong>IS</strong> the issue.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'd love to read the contract I'd have to sign with them... what can be done about it? I think I've asked them to email it to me but they said no.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Crazy..Just plain crazy.<br>

After looking at the site, this is nothing more than another stock photo site.<br>

Do you really think they will actively <strong>market </strong>your images? No.<br>

The are (as many are) a repository for images with a searchable database. Nothing new here.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>and I'm planning to begin supplying to Corbis</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Why?</p>

<p>What is your long range plan?<br>

Is this something for a little extra income?</p>

<p>Much has been written about stock photography, here on PN as well as many other places.</p>

<p>Earning some cash in stock is best done with a library of images that specializes, call it a niche' market if you prefer.</p>

<p>If you seek someone to truly market your photos, you'll need a representative and you'll have to be awfully good at what you do.</p>

<p>Few people are earning good money in stock now as the market is saturated.<br>

Those that are, are either dominating the market with thousands of images or specializing.</p>

[demianov]

<p>No one is dreaming (at least I'm not) of making any good money from stock. I shoot a lot and most of what I shoot is right for stock. I've even sold a couple of mediocre (in my opinion) photos for $$$ through Alamy (along with a few good ones). There is no indication in my case that expanding wouldn't be at least worthwhile. Imagebroker seems like the right thing to do to receive additional exposure. You are right they don't do any licensing or marketing, which I stated in my original post. They strictly distribute to about 200 small and probably even a few specialized agencies. Some of which are questionable. But the best part is that I get to choose which ones I want to sell through.<br>

"Stock" to me is a very small part of a very long equation. The extra exposure can't hurt, can it? A few bucks on the side? Can it really be that bad? The market is saturated? True but it is also growing. Alamy is growing (just opened a new division in Germany). Imagebroker is growing (revamping and expanding). There are more and more people who shoot for stock? This increases the chance for the photo buyers to find the right material. Instead of hiring someone to do an assignment more and more editors rely on stock libraries. World population is growing as well. There's more demand for books, textbooks, magazines, calendars, various merchandise, you name it. Where there's demand there has to be supply. There will NEVER be "too many pictures". Not ever. Plus the stuff that doesn't get sold today becomes "historical" in 30 years. It becomes "historical" anyway, even if it does get sold. Who knows, maybe I'll end up selling a "mediocre snap" for $20,000 in 2041 Only because I happened to be there and took a picture that no one else cared to take + keep + market. That building is no longer there. No one else has a suitable photo of it. I'm the one who gets to name the price. The sky's the limit.<br>

I really didn't want to get into all that but I had to since you brought it up. My original request was for a few opinions regarding imagebroker from those under their contract in order to avoid any potential pitfalls.<br>

I am kindly asking not to take this discussion beyond the original questions. I have time. If no one can make any useful input right now, there may be someone later who's had dealings with imagebroker.</p>