[STOCKPHOTO] Getty's new concept
David Kilpatrick
image collection:
Getty Images Announces New ?Rights-Ready? Licensing Model
Industry-Leading Fusion of Quality, Flexibility and Simplicity Reflects
Evolving Customer Needs
London ? 3 August 2006 ? Getty Images, Inc. (NYSE: GYI) today announced
the upcoming launch of rights-ready licensing, which enables customers in
the creative, corporate and publishing arenas to obtain high quality still
imagery through a simplified pricing and usage structure. Developed with
insight drawn from extensive global customer research, rights-ready
licensing combines the best of Getty Images content and functionality,
entering the market as the only model of its kind. It will be available in
late August, exclusively at www.gettyimages.com.
?In a world of ubiquitous, rapid-fire communication, our customers have to
be more nimble than ever, and licensing must adapt accordingly. The
rights-ready solution makes licensing fast, flexible and predictable while
delivering a level of rights control that limits the possibility of
over-exposure in the marketplace,? said Robert Gubas, vice president of
product marketing at Getty Images. ?We?re excited to be the first imagery
provider to offer this synergy of efficiency and effectiveness.?
Under the rights-ready model, duration and territory rights are unlimited
and use parameters are broadly defined, so customers can avoid
re-licensing for creative campaigns that have the potential to evolve over
time. Further streamlining the process, eight fixed price points are
designated according to basic commercial, internal company and editorial
use categories, at levels comparable to corresponding rights-managed
single use categories. While the model does not grant image exclusivity, a
total image buyout can be negotiated.
The rights-ready image collection, Riser, combines a breadth of subject
matter with an unexpected level of creativity. Named for its capacity to
serve as a fresh vantage point for looking at the way we live, work and
play in the world today, Riser will feature approximately 80,000 high
quality images at launch, with concepts spanning lifestyle, business,
travel, sport and wildlife content categories. To ensure the collection
stays relevant to customer needs, Getty Images will continue to expand the
Riser collection, adding hundreds of new images each month.
?The scope of a campaign isn?t always easy to define at conception as
powerful ideas are often transformed during the creative process,? said
Andrew Saunders, vice president of imagery at Getty Images. ?Rights-ready
licensing allows customers to easily extend their campaigns and to employ
innovative thinking, making it an especially useful resource for new media
applications.?
The new model complements the company?s existing rights-managed,
royalty-free and subscription models, and the micro-payment model of its
subsidiary, iStockphoto. Its introduction aligns with Getty Images?
continual effort to offer customers the most innovative tools in the
imagery industry.
Rights-ready licensing will be available to Getty Images customers in all
languages and currencies at www.gettyimages.com in late August.
Cheers - David
--
f2photo: articles, news and reviews - www.f2photo.co.uk
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STOCKPHOTO/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STOCKPHOTO-...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Quang-Tuan Luong
number of pixels. In my opinion, a vast improvement within the concept
of RF.
Tuan.
http://www.terragalleria.com
Ian Murray
So what on earth does that all mean - just another type of RF licence
with an exclusivity buy out option? How is it RM if the actaul useage
isn't known or managed?
Confused...
Ian Murray
> Here is the press release from Getty today on a new licencing model
and
> image collection:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred
>
> Dear David,
>
> So what on earth does that all mean - just another type of RF
licence
> with an exclusivity buy out option? How is it RM if the actaul
useage
> isn't known or managed?
The usages are simply broader and so are less confusing to buyers.
The current, confusing RM licensing methods often lead to misuse as
buyers throw up their hands at online calculators that are too
difficult to use and choose uses that don't apply.
Call most big agencies and you talk to people who are poorly trained
and have little understanding of how to accurately license an image.
I have made the point for a long time: RM is too complex and RF is
too simple and somewhere in between is a reasonable blend.
IMO, Getty images is opening a can of worms that will ultimately make
it much easier for independents to compete against them. But of
course these same independents will insist on shooting themselves in
their collective feet as they scream and complain about what could be
of tremendous use to them...or will they?
Fred Voetsch
ACCLAIM IMAGES
http://www.acclaimimages.com/
John Fowler
independent RM types should follow closely. I'm not shooting myself -
yet - altho' I must say that I don't encounter much confusion on the
part of customers and, in my limited experience buying images from
the biggies, I've always encountered knowledgeable and helpful sales
staff.
Tim McGuire
wrote:
>
> Looks like a variation of RF, priced by broad usage type rather than
> number of pixels. In my opinion, a vast improvement within the
concept
> of RF.
>
Tuan and All,
The image collection being used for this new Rights-Ready licensing
model is being culled from some their Rights Managed collections and
I'd suspect some of their wholly owned productions.
I've heard that the images moved into this new collection will still
be governed by the RM Brand contracts (TIB, Taxi...) signed by
photographers. I find it very disconcerting that there is no new
contract or addendum governing this new licensing model, especially
given the fact that many photographers signed their contracts with
Getty in 2001 and had no possible idea that 5 years later Getty could
be making worldwide perpetual licenses with their supposedly Rights
Managed photographs. I doubt that was the understanding of the
contract by most photographers at the time they signed on.
I also find the unending duration of the license and the lack of any
territory to be problematic. The lack of a limit on duration of
license means that an independent photographer, should they decide to
remove images from Getty that were previously licensed in Rights
Ready and license those images themselves could never license an
exclusive license of their imagery because somebody has rights to
that image in perpetuity in some limited scale. Most likely the
photographer wouldn't be told exactly what that scale is by Getty and
therefore would not ethically be able to license that image
exclusively.
Because there is no territory / region associated with the Rights-
Ready licensing model depending on how they set the price point it
will either exclude the small business sector only marketing in one
city or a state/province or it will be overly generous to large
multinational corporations marketing over larger territories.
Without a territory at a higher price the little guy trying to find
some images for his 500 brochures distributed in one city / town gets
priced out of being able to use these images. The multinational
company marketing worldwide in several languages gets the deal of a
lifetime.
IMHO, at the very least Getty should offer an addendum to the RM
contract, let photographers opt in on a per image basis, and put a 2-
5 year time limit on the duration of license for Rights-Ready
images. Getty should know better than any what a reasoanle time
limit would be for a creative campaign and i'd guess 5 years would be
more than enough for most clients. If an image is that valuable that
it is needed longer than 5 years then perhaps it's worth paying more
for...
A territory designation for the Rights-Ready licensing model would be
nice so as to differentiate between small market customers and large
and not force out the small customers or leave money on the table
with the large market customers.
As it has been described to me and from what I've read I find Rights-
Ready to be a good idea, though unnecessarily over generous in
duration and territory. With a few modifications it could be a great
way to make a "RM-esque" licensing model that competes better in the
market with RF… something I've been waiting for a long time! Maybe
if Getty doesn't get it perfect someone else will.
Cheers,
Tim McGuire
Peter Dean
<tmmc...@earthlink.net> writes
>
>The image collection being used for this new Rights-Ready licensing
>model is being culled from some their Rights Managed collections and
>I'd suspect some of their wholly owned productions.
>
They need permission to move images to RR.. don't they? I don't want any
of mine culled in this way ;-) If you know different please let me know
as i will need to act rather than just ignore it.
How can any rights managed images remain "managed" if licenses are sold
with no time limit? Except to say to future buyers "company X bought
this image but we have no idea if they are still using it"
A time limit and it would be a version of RM. No time limit and its a
version of RF. Rights Ready is a version of RF. I will stick with RM
versions and include that important little time limit no matter how
flexible and broad licensing evolves.
Cheers
Pete
--
Agripicture Images http://www.agripicture.com
Library sales contact Shelagh Dean
Agriculture stock and assignments by Peter Dean
Steve
double-page images, down to just $1/year for a web-ready image. The
photographer gets only 20% to 40% of that.
I'm rather baffled as to why any stock photographer would want their
work represented by this company.
Steve Silver
http://www.silveradomedia.com
Sean Locke
>
> iStockphoto charges at most $20 to $40 a year for royalty-free
> double-page images, down to just $1/year for a web-ready image. The
> photographer gets only 20% to 40% of that.
>
> I'm rather baffled as to why any stock photographer would want their
> work represented by this company.
>
> Steve Silver
> http://www.silveradomedia.com
>
You're completely right. There's no money to be made at iStock. It's
a waste of time.
sjlocke
sj_coburn
Well, most are willing to accept this pittance because they have the
best sales at this point in time. Alot are growing unsatisfied
however, and I sense a turn in the tide. Dreamstime, Fotolia, and
StockXpert which offer significantly better commissions are continuing
to grow. It's only a matter of time.
BTW... I love this shot:
http://www.silveradomedia.com/photos/featured/JPN-D5120_300x220.jpg
--- In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <ssilver@...> wrote:
>
communi_catt
iStock at all.
Stay with the traditional agencies I say . . . like Alamy?
Don't play with the bad, bad micro sites. Nope, not at all. Stay right
away . . . no money there at all. Complete waste of time and effort.
Ian Murray
Sean Locke is on several other forums telling everyone who will listen
about how successful he is on iStock- in the top 20 earners I think.
But I don't know how many others of the over 20,000 iStock
contributors are making anything worthwhile?
Alamy is not a traditional agency. Of the 5,000 or so Alamy
contributors - it is open to anyone with a 6Mp camera- I would hazard
that a far larger percentage and number of people are making way more
than at iStock.
Ian Murray
>
> You are right Sean. It's just plain criminal. No money to be made on
> iStock at all.
>
> Stay with the traditional agencies I say . . . like Alamy?
>
> Don't play with the bad, bad micro sites. Nope, not at all. Stay
right
> away . . . no money there at all. Complete waste of time and effort.
>
Peter Bennett
The problem is you are making the assumption that you are talking about
professional stock photographers, these are amateur photographers who are
involved with these microstocks. Some of these folks may take exception, but
the truth is wanting to be a professional or calling yourself a professional
does not make you a professional. All they are doing is making a dollar more
than they made when they showed their work to Uncle Louey, their girlfriend
(or boyfriend), or whoever else they could get to look at it.
Digital technology has certainly leveled the playing field, at least in
terms of equipment and cost of image processing. Once you have the gear,
there is almost no overhead to shooting other than travel expenses. But I
would guess that most of the microstock travel images were taken on family
vacations anyway.
I would define professional as an attitude towards oneąs work in terms of
quality, commitment, value of work and mostly in terms of business
integrity, the latter of which microstock contributors have none.
My hope other than these agencies either failing or joining the ranks or the
real agencies, is that amateurs photographers will wake up and realize their
work has value and should be treated as such. I work with a number of
amateur photographers in my agency. These are folks who work full time jobs,
but loved photography and valued their work. Some of them are now my best
earners. As they continued to earn, their commitment to excellence in their
work also increased and even though they continue to work full time jobs, I
would not hesitate to call them professionals.
If you think your work is worth a dollar or two, then that says a lot of how
much you truly value your work.
>
Peter Bennett
Ambient Images Inc.
P: 310-312-6640
Specializing in New York and California images
http://www.californiastockphoto.com
http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
From: "Steve" <ssi...@stevesilverphotos.com>
> iStockphoto charges at most $20 to $40 a year for royalty-free
> double-page images, down to just $1/year for a web-ready image. The
> photographer gets only 20% to 40% of that.
>
> I'm rather baffled as to why any stock photographer would want their
> work represented by this company.
>
> Steve Silver
> http://www.silveradomedia.com
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fred
> double-page images, down to just $1/year for a web-ready image. The
> photographer gets only 20% to 40% of that.
>
> I'm rather baffled as to why any stock photographer would want their
> work represented by this company.
The truth about your industry is that, in the first place, it is not
rocket science; anyone can push a shutter button and with a digital
camera the image captured is ready for publishing, no film developing
or scanning needed.
Another truth is that micro-agencies do make money for people, in
some cases, GOOD money. Is it sustainable? Are they taking work from
professional photographers? Are they creating new opportunities? The
answers are probably not, yes and yes.
The truth is that they have a right to do so. They are competing.
They have found a way to undercut you and I and unless we offer
something they can't, we will lose. What I have learned in my short
time in this business is that professional image buyers are willing
to pay good money for knowing that they are getting professional work
where releases have been procurred and high quality cameras have been
used. They are willing to pay more if they are given tremendous
customer service. You can't afford to do that at $1 a photo or even
$40 a photo.
The bottom line is that if you want to continue to charge hundreds or
even thousands of dollars per license you had better offer something
more than the micro's offer.
Fred Voetsch
Acclaim Stock Photography
http://www.acclaimimages.com/
communi_catt
about the micro issue. Sean, probably quite wisely, doesn't seem to
want to box today.
It's always fun with Ian – who now seems like a friendly, docile and
amicable fellow in comparison with the more rabid display of
apparent unbridled hate which seems to have been poured out upon all
fellow photographers who submit to microstock sites.
Steve477, it's quite simple really. Sell enough $1 images and it all
starts to look worthwhile. It's not a terribly complicated
concept . . . but you knew that already, didn't you?
Okay, so how about the agency owner who admits that a number of his
contributors left his traditional agency because they realised they
would make more on the micro sites? I know Ian knows that, but what
about the rest of you?
If you really want an objective argument, just work out an image
average $ sales value per year. That's a simple, clear and objective
test. You will get your answer.
Do good microstock photographers make money? Yes.
How much money? Probably not as much as they would like but
certainly much more than many of you think.
However, this is not an objective argument, is it? This is not
really about whether microstock photographers are making money or
not.
It's much less about micro photographers - and much more about you.
It's about your position and about where you find yourself now and
what threats you are faced with.
It's about disruptive technologies and about how little you really
know about business. It's about how you are scared. It's about why
you are scared. It's about being out of your depth because you don't
have any business answers to business problems.
It's possibly about being so scared that you somehow find it clever
to make quite possibly libellous public comments about the business
integrity of every single microstock photographer.
You can kick and fight and bite all you want. At core, you know this
is why you hate so much.
I wish I could tell you guys not to worry. I wish I could tell you
that your stock photographic assets were safe. I wish I could say to
you that the micro guys are a bunch of loser amateurs who will never
match your quality.
I can't say that and I won't say that because it would be a lie.
You guys are in an awful lot of trouble. Your agencies are being
outclassed in a business environment. If quality continues to
increase at the speed it does at micro agencies then microstock
photographers are going to outclass you in a photographic
environment too.
Don't believe me? How about these three:
http://www.dreamstime.com/Rinderart_info
http://www.dreamstime.com/Looby_info
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-ukurhan.html
Now I know that a number of you are very good at what you do – so
the standard of this work will not bother you too much. But there
are a large number of you who simply don't come close . . . and you
know it.
I also wish I could say that there were no problems with the micro
model. I wish there were no liability issues. I'd rather a designer
not use one of my images in a manner for which it was not
intended. I'd be happier if sites took more of an interest in
protecting photographers and their models.
Ian knows all of this because I've voiced major concerns about the
possibly of liability before. Ian also knows it drives me personally
nuts when threads get locked, blocked or simply disappear. For me it
shows complete contempt and disrespect to the submitters who keep a
hungry business machine fed and fat.
I can't tell you how annoyed I get when some photographers behave
like a bunch of brain-washed cult zombies when dealing with
sensitive and potentially dangerous legal implications relating to
stock imaging. It's like some of them simply don't think at all –
always the blind idiot towing the party line. Always believing,
never questioning. Not that it does much good to question (see
locked threads comment above).
Anyway sorry for such a long post.
I hope, just maybe, this makes some of you think a little more
deeply and insult a little bit less.
Regards
Alistair Cotton
--- In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <ssilver@...> wrote:
>
Quang-Tuan Luong
> time in this business is that professional image buyers are willing
> to pay good money for knowing that they are getting professional work
> where releases have been procurred and high quality cameras have been
> used. They are willing to pay more if they are given tremendous
> customer service. You can't afford to do that at $1 a photo or even
> $40 a photo.
>
> The bottom line is that if you want to continue to charge hundreds or
> even thousands of dollars per license you had better offer something
> more than the micro's offer.
>
This "something more" cannot be just model releases as istockphoto's
policy is more strict than most RM agencies.
Tuan.
http://www.terragalleria.com
Sean Locke
Always a pleasure, Ian.
>
> What is the point of this hilarious irony from you and Sean?
>
Don't need the competition. Stay away.
> Sean Locke is on several other forums telling everyone who will listen
> about how successful he is on iStock- in the top 20 earners I think.
> But I don't know how many others of the over 20,000 iStock
> contributors are making anything worthwhile?
Hardly. Anyways, you might want to read this thread, although I'm
sure the entire thing is fabricated:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=38342&page=1
Sean
>
> Alamy is not a traditional agency. Of the 5,000 or so Alamy
> contributors - it is open to anyone with a 6Mp camera- I would hazard
> that a far larger percentage and number of people are making way more
> than at iStock.
>
> Ian Murray
You're probably right. Everyone should join Alamy. I encourage it.
Why not?
Sean L.
Stockphoto Seller
Carl May/BPS
Regards
Alistair Cotton
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Murray
I read the thread. Hardly anyone is making anything worthwhile at all.
Your point is....?
Ian Murray
> Hardly. Anyways, you might want to read this thread, although I'm
> sure the entire thing is fabricated:
> http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=38342&page=1
>
> Sean
Stockphoto Seller
When we announced this innovative 22nd-century, speed-of-light concept to you, we were also approached by numerous companies who wanted to partner with us to maximize your opportunity to pay for downloads. This has led deep into discussions of file compression, operating speed, efficient site design, storage and backup technology, online financial transactions, site translation into the major languages of the world, etc.--all with an eye to giving you an opportunity to have orders of magnitude more downloads than any other service has ever provided, including free photo operations. Frankly, it has been stunning to have these possibilities for iSuckerstock piling in on top of one another--daunting, in fact. I haven't had time to sell an old-fashioned RM image in months.
I had originally thought downloads of your work would take place one image at a time, making accounting for the fees you would pay relatively straightforward. Well, before we could roll out 1.0, we have leaped through the equivalent of 2.0, 3.0, and maybe 4.0. Among other advances, our brand will involve new online accounting paradigms. You will be paying for downloads through a most sophisticated and mature technological engine that will allow for almost instant bulk downloading of all image files from a given photographer, all files associated with one or more keywords, all files on the site with similar visual characteristics, and on through so many permutations for bulk downloading that the mind boggles. No client will ever be forced to limit their downloading (and thus their income from you) because they have been slowed by actually having to look at images or make decisions among images. Thus, downloaders will be limited only by the capacity of their storage, and we
will be employing "ultra-compression" technology from one of our putative partners to maximize, beyond anything seen before in an image-downloading operation, the number of files that can be downloaded into any given storage space.
So I know you are eager, but hang in there. iSuckerstock is going to be a downloading monster, a downloading rocket, a faster-than-light behemoth. Your images are going to sweep the globe like a tsunami. Like Super Chicken, they'll be EVERYWHERE. You'll be so successful that you'll have to squeeze your schedule to make images for uploading; you'll be making payments to downloaders so quickly that your days of losing money long-term with RF and shorter term with micro stock will seem like a previous life. Yopu were a stock photo rock in that former incarnation; now you will be a cheetah, a pronghorn, a diving peregrine falcon. Without even a beta site up yet, iSuckerstock, and you(!), are already the biggest, fastest happening in the history of stock photography and video. (Did I mention video? Oh well, that would take another message the length of this one just to give the rudiments of how we are going to make You Tube look like You Rube!)
Carl May
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Ian Murray
more downloads. I'd love a little gold crown next to my name to show
everybody what a top stock shooter I am.
Ian Murray
Rubens Abboud
> > But I don't know how many others of the over 20,000 iStock
> > contributors are making anything worthwhile?
>
> Hardly. Anyways, you might want to read this thread, although I'm
> sure the entire thing is fabricated:
> http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=38342&page=1
Sean,
I actually have nothing against penny stock. It's a legitimate way
to compete for business.
However, if I analyze it as a business, the penny stock model
appears to be a very weak model. Your thread highlights this fact.
I've also spent some time on istock reading other threads that seem
to point in the same direction.
Penny stockers do not appear to be running their stock photography
as a business. The vast majority, from what I have read, appear
content with making enough to simply cover their material expenses,
and even then often only a percentage of those.
To me, a business that cannot cover more than a portion of
expenses, is a failing business and a weak model to follow.
From an economic standpoint, I am only interested in maximizing my
profit. There is a point in the supply-demand curve, and not
necessarily by offering goods at the lowest or highest prices, where
I can make the most money. The trick is to find that sweet spot.
From the evidence you have presented, it does not seem that $1 is
that spot. Look here to understand more about maximizing profit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_maximization
Perhaps, the penny stock model is a rational decision for those who
have nothing but passion for photography. But it is not clear that
it is a rational decision for those looking to establish a business.
In terms of competition, and for the same reasons as you, I wished
more stock photographers converted to the penny stock model. :-)
Best regards,
Rubens.
http://www.TheImageNation.com
Travel stock photography
Dennis Hallinan
> I actually have nothing against penny stock. It's a legitimate way
> to compete for business.
>
> However, if I analyze it as a business, the penny stock model
> appears to be a very weak model.
However,if you analyze it as a hobby it has a lot going for it. There
are probably more people into photography as a hobby than as a business.
Perhaps the hobbyists have more fun.
Dennis Hallinan
Rick Boden
>
> I read the thread. Hardly anyone is making anything worthwhile at all.
>
But if you take the lions share of all those sales and add them up you will see that someone is
making a fortune off the backs of those eager beavers.
Rick
Peter Bennett
> From: "communi_catt" <alis...@glat.co.za>
>
> You can kick and fight and bite all you want. At core, you know this
> is why you hate so much.
>
Alistair,
You confuse hate with contempt.
However this contempt is not personally directed at you, I actually think
you and your fellow micros are as much victims of this corporate greed as
the rest of us, you just haven't figured it out as yet. You actually seem to
believe in what you are doing, itšs just too bad that the corporate slobs
that run your microstocks are not worthy of your idealism or your efforts.
I finished reading your post and then logged onto my Alamy account, only to
see I had made a nice $1250 sale earlier in the day. I coulndšt help but
wonder how many micro shooters logged onto their micro agency account to see
that they had made the 1000 - 5000 sales that day, to equal the commission I
had earned. But even if they did, I would really much rather it in one shot
than in several thousand sales, wouldnšt you? Honestly, wouldnšt you?
Peter Bennett
Ambient Images Inc.
P: 310-312-6640
Specializing in New York and California images
http://www.californiastockphoto.com
http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Locke
>
>
> I finished reading your post and then logged onto my Alamy account,
only to
> see I had made a nice $1250 sale earlier in the day. I coulndšt help but
> wonder how many micro shooters logged onto their micro agency
account to see
> that they had made the 1000 - 5000 sales that day, to equal the
commission I
> had earned. But even if they did, I would really much rather it in
one shot
> than in several thousand sales, wouldnšt you? Honestly, wouldnšt you?
>
>
> Peter Bennett
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the example. What would you say is your average daily
sales figure there? Do you average $1250 every day or so? That's
gross anyways, not the net royalty, right?
BTW, I don't care how the money comes in, although getting it from a
larger number actually provides a more steady sample, than a single
random sale occasionally.
Sean L.
Jeff Greenberg
<bpslistmail@...> wrote:
>...race to the mucky bottom of stock photography...Enjoy the wages
of gullibility.
=====
Concurrent converging races to the bottom! Here's another race to
bottom: agencies that work mostly with contributors who are high
income earners in other NON-PHOTOGRAPHY professions & are stealing
income from full time photographers. For example, read this agency
description:
"Stock photographs by SCIENTISTS with backgrounds in the life, earth
and environmental sciences...Dozens of photographers with scientific
backgrounds WHO WORK FOR universities and colleges, research
institutes, private corporations, museums, parks and medical schools.
Researchers and teachers in botany, natural history, microbiology,
zoology, ecology, conservation, geology, medicine, geography."
Not only does this rob full time photographers of potential income,
it supports those who deny full time photographers access to photo
opportunities. Ever tried to get permission to take photos at
research institutes or museums? High permit fees or outright denial!
No one expects an agency to consist exclusively of full time stock
shooters, but an agency that quietly does the opposite reminds one of
an old proverb:
Friend in the face, snake in the back.
Regards, JG
Quang-Tuan Luong
> Concurrent converging races to the bottom! Here's another race to
> bottom: agencies that work mostly with contributors who are high
> income earners in other NON-PHOTOGRAPHY professions & are stealing
> income from full time photographers.
Why is it more legitimate to earn money as a full timer than as a
part-timer ?
Tuan.
http://www.terragalleria.com
Quang-Tuan Luong
[...] contributors who are high
> income earners in other NON-PHOTOGRAPHY professions & are stealing
> income from full time photographers.
>
> "Stock photographs by SCIENTISTS with backgrounds in the life,[...]
Scientific careers are not exactly what I'd call high income.
Confortable incomes and little incertainty, but a successful stock
photographer can certainly do better. See also
http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/
Tuan.
http://www.terragalleria.com
Rick Boden
> part-timer ?
>
part timer when pricing is equal.
Rick
Rubens Abboud
wrote:
>
> However,if you analyze it as a hobby it has a lot going for it.
There
> are probably more people into photography as a hobby than as a
business.
> Perhaps the hobbyists have more fun.
>
> Dennis Hallinan
Dennis,
I dare say both hobbyists and businesspeople are having fun as long
as their respective personal goals are being met.
I am personally not interested in strategies that allow one to
purchase half a camera after several months and thousands of sales.
I am much happier and fulfilled when I open an envelope from a
client with a cheque for $2500 for a couple of images.
But I wouldn't dare enter a penny stocker forum to deliver a sermon
based on my experiences. What would be the point?
What would be the point of Ronaldinho or Zidane lecturing kids that
they are throwing money away by playing soccer for free? They both
have different goals.
As long as everyone is happy, the world is a better place.
Best regards,
Rubens.
http://www.TheImageNation.com
Travel stock photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Bennett
Itıs hard to give an accurate number, but I will give you and idea that may
be helpful.
First off, if I made $1260 or so, even every other day, I would be a happy
man, but alas... Our gross sales at Alamy for last year was a little under
28k. Alamy is a sub-agent of ours, but many of the photographers I
represent, go into Alamy on their own, so I would say that about two thirds
of that number is mine, about 18.6k. If you base the year on 260 work days,
my daily average is $71.54, if you base it on a 365 day calendar, it is
50.96 per day.
In answer to Simon Plantı question, I would echo Mark Sykes. The figures
above were based on about 2000 images in the Alamy collection, but we have
been adding substantially more in the last six months and I am seeing sal
Pet
P: 310-312-6640
Specializing in New York and California images
http://www.californiastockphoto.com
http://www.newyorkstockphoto.com
Mark Sykes
> Hi Sean,
>
> Itąs hard to give an accurate number, but I will give you and idea that may
> be helpful.
>
> First off, if I made $1260 or so, even every other day, I would be a happy
> man, but alas... Our gross sales at Alamy for last year was a little under
> 28k. Alamy is a sub-agent of ours, but many of the photographers I
> represent, go into Alamy on their own, so I would say that about two thirds
> of that number is mine, about 18.6k. If you base the year on 260 work days,
> my daily average is $71.54, if you base it on a 365 day calendar, it is
> 50.96 per day.
>
> In answer to Simon Plantą question, I would echo Mark Sykes. The figures
> above were based on about 2000 images in the Alamy collection, but we have
> been adding substantially more in the last six months and I am seeing sal
Peter...
The figures you quote do seem to roughly correlate to mine. Rough guide is
2000 'quality' images generate around $2000 / month gross. As a matter of
interest, are any of your images RF or are you totally L? My collection is
roughly 30% RF but these images account for around 60% of gross sales. I can
say that I have had several decent sales ($1000-ish) from images which
larger libraries would be unlikely to accept. In English money I seem to be
approaching Ł400 / week after commissions as sales seem to be rising. And
yes...key wording is important.
Regards
--
Mark M Sykes
Mark Sykes Photography
m: +44 (0)7860 247900
t: +44 (0)1274 877801
e: ma...@marksykesphoto.com
w: http://www.marksykesphoto.com
ianthraves2001
> w: http://www.marksykesphoto.com
>
Hi Mark
I attended your lecture on stock photography (along with Steve Allen's) at the BIPP North
West over the past couple of years - both very interesting!
I used to be a Picture Editor for an agency in London about 10 years ago, in the day's of
transparency - much has changed since then. Firstly, when the best original images went
out to clients, there was more opportunity for the second, third, forth...., best images to
sell. Now, the 'best' images are always available and are likely to be the most frequent
sellers, leaving the 'weaker' images to be overlooked by potential buyers. Just prior to the
digital age, agencies started duplicating their best images on to 70mm or 5x4 film and the
difference in sales accrued by the 'best' images was staggering, especially if sized up from
35mm film. This also left the weaker images to drop to the bottom of the pile.
The other significant change is that fees have never really risen on the most part since I
worked in the industry, in fact they have probably gone down. Although there are many
more potental markets, there is also greater competition between agencies - and there are
more than ever (even though Getty own most of the big players now)! I have lost direct
sales to some of my design clients because they have sourced similar images from
microstock agencies like shutterstock and istockphoto, who sell images for a few dollars.
Some say that these agencies recieve poor images from amateurs, but I am not sure this is
the case any longer. This has to be affecting the market, otherwise why did Getty buy
istockphoto.com. There is an interesting article/podcast - TPN: The Digital Photography
Show - [audio:http://digiphoto.thepodcastnetwork.com/audio/
tpn_digiphoto_20060719_014.mp3] - worth listening to.
Finally, (hope I'm not boring you too much) I sold a RM image via alamy to the Daily
Express (I happened to see it published - Alamy don't disclose clients). A few months
later, my wife spotted the same image, again in the daily express, half page. I checked
Alamy and no sale was reported. I contacted Alamy, who said no sale of this image had
been made to the Express recently. I then emailed the Express - they replied that the
image was in their library and they did not realise it was not one of theirs and that it was
RM or from Alamy. They did eventially pay me, but I wonder how often this kind of thing
is going on. You may spot an image used in a National Newspaper, but what about every
other publication in the world. If this is going to happen, we one may as well sell
everything Royalty Free, then at least we know where we stand!!
For those who are interested, I have published an on-going article in the Writers' and
Artists' Yearbook on Stock Photography.
Ian
Howard M. Paul
>> Why is it more legitimate to earn money as a full timer than as a
>> part-timer ?
>>
>It's not. The logic is a little twisted. I don't think any professional
would have an issue with a
>part timer when pricing is equal.
Especially, when the part-timer has more business acumen to license images at
better rates, than to give-in and give away his/her work for pennies on the
dollar, as many of the less experienced do these days!
___________________________________________________
Howard M. Paul Photography for Communication and Commerce
Emergency!Stock http://www.emergencystock.photofolio.com
(303) 829-5678 Fax: (303) 871-8356 hmp...@ecentral.com
Yesterday I learned I CAN walk backwards, photograph a forest
fire and eat a bagel (with cream cheese) at the same time!
Peter Dean
<i...@thravesphoto.co.uk> writes
>--- In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, Mark Sykes <mark@...> wrote:
>>
>
> I then emailed the Express - they replied that the
>image was in their library and they did not realise it was not one of
>theirs and that it was
>RM or from Alamy. They did eventially pay me, but I wonder how often
>this kind of thing
>is going on. You may spot an image used in a National Newspaper, but
>what about every
>other publication in the world. If this is going to happen, we one may
>as well sell
>everything Royalty Free, then at least we know where we stand!!
>
I think this happens quite a bit. What you see is the tip of the
proverbial iceberg.
Its not a good reason to do RF however IMO. Quite the reverse. When you
spot the uses which sometimes can be major uses you can earn extra
money. The Express and anyone else will pay up if they are caught out.
Back in analogue days Tony Stone licensed one of our images as part of a
cover montage for the Centennial edition of Country Life. An estate
agent friend saw my byline and told me. We waited and waited to see it
appear on a statement. Six months later we phoned TSI and it was chased
up. It was simply human inefficiency either at TSI or CL and not an
analogue/digital issue.
We sold an image to The Guardian last week who assure us they now have a
good system in place for paying re-use if details are in meta data. We
will see. We do have the option to ask them to remove the image from
their database. At the very least this is what photographers and their
organisations should be pressing for. Simply for image buyers to be
organised and to know who owns the image.
[ Anyone know if the Guardian do indeed have a good system for re-use
and billing ? Do other people ask the nationals to remove files? ]
Its often very profitable for us if we visit an agricultural event when
we find all the images clients have used they thought they owned.
If these images were not "managed" we would make no extra money and
could never offer exclusives occasionally. Theft is theft but in our
experience its unintentional shoplifting sometimes because the buyers
now think all the goods have buy one get one free price tags. Nobody
argues however when you explain why your images are managed. Some new
buyers wet behind the ears now tell us what a good idea it is that we
know who is using the images at any one time (and all the similars) Or
rather that we know who has purchased a license. We don't guarantee
anything because of all the likely illegal uses and that is what we
explain.
Re istockphoto i am certain the quality will increase in the same way it
has done so for RF. The very same things said about RF on this forum
five years ago are now being said about micro. Pro photographers will
take part because they don't want to miss out on something. Meanwhile we
have no problem selling exclusively managed rights but the prices are
affected by all the cheaper models.
At the end of the day when all the dust settles in this industry the
value of an image will be the result of the image itself and the
knowledge of how much exposure it has had in the market. The knowledge
may be the most valuable factor in the equation.
A truly great stock image new to the market place without any current
sales will be the most valuable.
You can see for yourself the good images at istockphoto and the highly
saleable. They get multiple downloads and they should be earning more
money elsewhere if they were managed better.
On the theme of buy one get one free i noticed on your site a link to
your Alamy images. You have clearly similar sets of images both as L and
as RF. This appears to be common practice at Alamy. I don't think its
ethical but then i am just old fashioned. They don't call me Deano for
nothing ;-) I am certain the majority here will think this practice is
OK but personally i think it is not.
Leaving ethics on one side don't you think its confusing for buyers to
have similar images in both RF and L ? I understand why some people want
to hedge their bets but then why should you be surprised when the
Express think they own the images? They probably thought they had bought
one of the RF images from a set at Alamy. I think in a court they could
more easily argue the toss if half your images in a set are RF and the
other half L. They would say in their defence that they were confused
even if we all know they are not.
cheers
Pete
--
Peter Dean Agripicture Images http://www.agripicture.com
David Barr
>Some new
>buyers wet behind the ears now tell us what a good idea it is that we
>know who is using the images at any one time (and all the similars) Or
>rather that we know who has purchased a license. We don't guarantee
>anything because of all the likely illegal uses and that is what we
>explain.
>
Hi Pete
At what point does the intentional or unintentional violation of
copyright not undermine the ability to market as RM? Surely these
violations allow only pictures hot off the press to truly be
considered RM.
I too visit ag trade shows and see my work in unlicensed use but even
with careful explanation of how and why they should be invoiced this
has sometimes meant a one time license and the end of any future
business with that client.
David Barr
--
Photobar Agricultural Stock Photography
Simplify your Search http://www.photobar.com
http://www.stockartistsalliance.com SAA
http://www.cama.org/ CAMA
http://www.nama.org/ NAMA
Stockphoto Seller
Static symbols are so yesterday. The downloads from your collection will be so dynamic that no fixed cipher will be able to represent their number. Consequently, we are looking into giving you an ego charge by having a real-time counter next to your name--sort of like one of those running totals one sees on the sides of financial buildings for rapidly increasing numbers like the national debt, with the numbers at the single-digit end spinning past in a blur. The list of downloaded stars will be a popular feature of the site, I predict, with any given photographer's name leaping above others as their downloads increase--or falling behind as downloads decrease due to failure to upload enough images or lack of money to pay downloaders. (Payments will, of course, be made by automated electronic transfers of funds from your account[s] and will cease whenever a photo source's account balance is zero. Unlike RF, microstock, subscription, etc., we will never cost you more than
you have over either the long or short terms.)
Several people have suggested the excitement will be like Alamy's much publicized attainment of new benchmarks as they add million after million of images into their collection. Folks, I won't insult you by explaining how slow Alamy's collection building is in comparison to what we are talking about with iSuckerstock. They are pulling an oxcart with wooden wheels on an old cobble road while we are blitzing the heavens in a dart of a particle-driven spaceship.
Carl May
Ian Murray <idmu...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
But do we get little film cannisters next to our name if we pay for
more downloads. I'd love a little gold crown next to my name to show
everybody what a top stock shooter I am.
Ian Murray
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Stockphoto Seller
Here's an interesting question: if a scientist makes images as part of the work they do to make a living--research, professional exposition, subject-area exploration, and/or education--is that scientist not a professional photographer? And another: if it takes a scientific background to label at least some subjects of interest in an image, how does a scientist-photographer compete directly with generalists not capable of identifying and describing those subjects? And if a person has the academic and work-related background to properly portray a subject--to handle it properly and know what is important about it as it is photographed--why wouldn't they get preference over some non-entity popping into a science museum or restricted location out of the blue? Along this latter line of thought, some who do not already know their work may wish to read the article on Susan Middleton and David Littschwager (sp?) in the last issue or two of PDN. They get tremendous preferential
treatment for access to locations and subjects off limits to almost everyone. But they have earned it, and not in a small way by showing they have the skills to advance the mission of the entities granting access.
May I take your message as a compliment, Jeff? Some may not read it that way, but any time I see our little RM, exclusive-agency operation touted as competing successfully with slam-bang, non-exclusive, image-mill photographers and agencies that slather photos around everywhere like wet cement, hoping some will find walls to which they can stick, I take heart and remind myself that in a generally suicidal, delusional industry mostly gone over the edge (plunging toward the bottom), we must still be doing at least a few things right. You remind me. I need to get in touch with a couple of retired macro photographers--two of the world's best with arthropods--who have been marketing their own work for decades but might now be ready to have an agency that knows how help them into the future.
Carl May/BPS
Regards, JG
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stockphoto Seller
Until iSuckerstock is actually launched, you may make advance checks out to the "Carl May New Zealand Condo Retirement Fund."
Carl May
Thomas Hallstein <t...@outsight.com> wrote:
ROLF!!! HAHAHAHA
Great post Carl - thanks for the cheer!
Can't you build into iSucker a utility that allows me to pay in advance for a large quantity of images I've yet to take? Perhaps a surcharge at the retail level when I buy a new camera that immediately gets distributed to Photo Payees? (I can't say photo buyer anymore...)
Tom
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Thomas Hallstein
Outsight Photography
Santa Rosa, CA USA
http://www.outsight.com
i l l u s t r a t i o n t o i n s p i r a t i o n
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
----- Original Message -----
From: Stockphoto Seller
To: STOCK...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 11:58 PM
Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] iSuckerstock lives
For the thousands of eager photographers who responded to our previous, only mildly gushing announcements of iSuckerstock--the new era, Web 2.0, always-on stock image download site that leaps ahead of all previous stock image outlets by giving photo sources an opportunity to pay photo users per download--we haven't forgotten you.
When we announced this innovative 22nd-century, speed-of-light concept to you, we were also approached by numerous companies who wanted to partner with us to maximize your opportunity to pay for downloads. This has led deep into discussions of file compression, operating speed, efficient site design, storage and backup technology, online financial transactions, site translation into the major languages of the world, etc.--all with an eye to giving you an opportunity to have orders of magnitude more downloads than any other service has ever provided, including free photo operations. Frankly, it has been stunning to have these possibilities for iSuckerstock piling in on top of one another--daunting, in fact. I haven't had time to sell an old-fashioned RM image in months.
I had originally thought downloads of your work would take place one image at a time, making accounting for the fees you would pay relatively straightforward. Well, before we could roll out 1.0, we have leaped through the equivalent of 2.0, 3.0, and maybe 4.0. Among other advances, our brand will involve new online accounting paradigms. You will be paying for downloads through a most sophisticated and mature technological engine that will allow for almost instant bulk downloading of all image files from a given photographer, all files associated with one or more keywords, all files on the site with similar visual characteristics, and on through so many permutations for bulk downloading that the mind boggles. No client will ever be forced to limit their downloading (and thus their income from you) because they have been slowed by actually having to look at images or make decisions among images. Thus, downloaders will be limited only by the capacity of their storage, and we
will be employing "ultra-compression" technology from one of our putative partners to maximize, beyond anything seen before in an image-downloading operation, the number of files that can be downloaded into any given storage space.
So I know you are eager, but hang in there. iSuckerstock is going to be a downloading monster, a downloading rocket, a faster-than-light behemoth. Your images are going to sweep the globe like a tsunami. Like Super Chicken, they'll be EVERYWHERE. You'll be so successful that you'll have to squeeze your schedule to make images for uploading; you'll be making payments to downloaders so quickly that your days of losing money long-term with RF and shorter term with micro stock will seem like a previous life. Yopu were a stock photo rock in that former incarnation; now you will be a cheetah, a pronghorn, a diving peregrine falcon. Without even a beta site up yet, iSuckerstock, and you(!), are already the biggest, fastest happening in the history of stock photography and video. (Did I mention video? Oh well, that would take another message the length of this one just to give the rudiments of how we are going to make You Tube look like You Rube!)
Carl May
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Ian Murray
> Really? Where are these full-time professional scientific
photographers with the subject-area experience to know what to shoot,
how to shoot it, and how to label what they have photographed?
Carl,
But these scientists are so dull and unimaginative with their
captions. Why not get some Suckerstock shooters in there? 'Concept
shot of cool critters doing travel lifestyle stuff with bunch of
yellow plant like things' will get many more Google hits than some
stodgy old science caption using the sort of elitist, big words that
nobody understands.
Given religious fundamentalism and intolerant law makers further
dumbing down of reference book and textbooks could be just what your
leaders require. This geography teacher was suspended for having flags
in his classroom. Perhaps some parents were worried that their
children were coming home with the worrying idea that there were other
countries in the world.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9726287/detail.html?
subid=22100484&qs=1
Ian Murray
Bob Croxford
> blah blah blah and.... If you really want an objective argument,
> just work out an image
> average $ sales value per year. That's a simple, clear and objective
> test. You will get your answer. and more blah.......
What a load of wooly thinking..................
This shows no reference to economics, just narrow minded and selfish
business argument.
Put simply there is a 'BIG' economy run and owned by the super rich
and a 'SMALL' economy where the workers get by on incomes between
average and exploitative. Adding up the total wage bill does nothing
to show how much the individual workers are getting.
By selling $1 images to the 'BIG' economy you are no different to the
sweat shop workers in Indonesia and China selling to Wallmart who
have put so many US garment workers out of jobs. ( As an aside there
are probably millions of women in the west who own sewing machines.
They have more sense and business nous than to try and undercut
Chinese garment workers by selling at $1 rates to Wallmart.) I have
no basic argument with goods produced cheaply in 3rd world countries
if all other things are equal. It never is equal. Microstock is goods
produced expensively in the west and sold into a prosperous market at
way below cost price. More importantly it is well below the price
that business is prepared to pay which moves the profit for
exploiting the image from the creator to the user.
Your business argument is what produces a Wallmart scenario. Five of
the ten richest Americans are part of the Walton family while
Wallmart has a reputation for paying the lowest wages and very little
health or other benefits.
Photographers who try and justify their selfish business plan by
suggesting that some make money is akin to saying that microstock is
a good idea because it helps the bank balance of Mark Getty.
Bob Croxford.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]