| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/27/2005 12:06:20 PM · #1 |
ok, i work in a firm that does a lot of print work. most of the stock photos we use come from the big agencies (getty, veer, etc.) however, the other day we were looking for a photo that we just could not find anywhere else... except shutterstock.
i had kept mum about the microstock sites before because i don't think they are fair to photographers. but now it seems the jig is up.
we paid the one month fee ($139) to get that one photo. my boss then turned around, marked up the cost at some agency markup (we'll say 20%, because i'm not exactly sure what it was), and invoiced the client for it. ($139 + 20% markup = $166.80)
so, my boss (who is notoriously cheap anyway) has already made $27.80 on that single photograph. that's 139 times what the photographer (who got paid $.20) earned, and they did all of the work.
furthermore, my boss plans to have us review the microstock sites to use images whenever possible. and he's going to charge the same price as the first ($166.80).
if he wanted us to go through and download all of our allowed 750 images this month, we could build up a decent stock library to use for other projects and charge our clients $166.80 for each photo. that means that my boss could make a theoretical total of $125,100, less the inital investment of the one month subscription.
now, granted, that's a theoretical maximum, but even if he charges ONE other photo to a client, he's still made $166.60 MORE than the photographer off of that photo.
and i work at a little teeny tiny agency. i KNOW this same phenomenon is occuring all over the place at other little teeny tiny agencies (not to mention big huge agencies), and i just don't think that's fair to you, the photographer.
i'm not saying you shouldn't sell stock. i'm not saying that shutterstock is a terrible thing. all i'm saying is that i think you can do a lot better. it may be a little more work to market yourself, but isn't it worth getting paid a decent return for all of your effort?
ok, you may now commence flaming me.... which is odd, because i'm really on the side of people who want to market their work. i just think that doing so for $.20 (or $.10) is cheating yourself immensely.
i just did the math in my head and thought i should share a point of view from the other side of the shutterstock world. |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 12:09:16 PM · #2 |
Thank you for posting this. I am with shutter, dreamstime and istock, but once I get my first "roll over" (in other words, payday) from each I'm considering quitting. Alamy sounds like a lot of work (having to upsize images, mail a CD, etc), but it also sounds like a better deal for me- a shooter.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2005 12:26:07 PM · #3 |
| Thank you for the post, muckpond. I had been considering, as I improve my photography, whether to start submitting to one of these sites. I think I may pass for reasons such as the one you just gave. |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 12:29:50 PM · #4 |
I have no photos on the "microstock" sites, and that's one of the reasons. When it comes time for me to start selling stock, if ever, I will do so on a site where I get paid reasonably for my work.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2005 12:35:48 PM · #5 |
| i had stuff on shutterstock for a few months, then i kinda realized how bad of a deal it was, and how if I ever wanted to make any real money on shots I had up there, I'd be screwed when people found out they could get them for a lot less, and I'd get paid not even enough to buy a dang granola bar. Needless to say I yanked all my pictures. I definitely agree with you. |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 12:45:18 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 01:05:05 PM · #7 |
So then, what's a good place to sell your pictures? I know this has been asked a million times and the issue has been beat to death but I figured I'd ask since the conversation is going anyway.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2005 01:08:37 PM · #8 |
| thanks muckpond, yup cheating ourselves is right and underestimating our talents, I say if you dont have enough images yet to approach a big agency just wait a little while take a lot of pix, small returns now or big ones later.... |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 01:11:49 PM · #9 |
Shutterstock prohibits reselling of the images you purchase. Essentially, Isn't that what your boss is doing?
|
|
|
|
05/27/2005 01:22:02 PM · #10 |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 01:26:06 PM · #11 |
.
Message edited by author 2005-07-10 19:40:16. |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 01:31:26 PM · #12 |
better hope a shutterstock admin isn't also a DPCer
|
|
|
|
05/27/2005 01:33:50 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by petrakka:
i had stuff on shutterstock for a few months, then i kinda realized how bad of a deal it was, and how if I ever wanted to make any real money on shots I had up there, I'd be screwed when people found out they could get them for a lot less, and I'd get paid not even enough to buy a dang granola bar. Needless to say I yanked all my pictures. I definitely agree with you. |
I did the same. I started thinking how I would feel if I saw one of my photos in use somewhere and realize i got a whopping $.20 for my efforts. I pulled all of my photos and had my account disabled. |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 01:35:09 PM · #14 |
You may want to check the Shutterstock terms of service. By reselling photos, your boss may be violating the license agreement and therefore copyright law.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
05/27/2005 01:36:02 PM · #15 |
Yes, reselling is definitely a big no-no...shutterstock still sucks, but what your boss is doing is wrong.
I'd let him know it's not worth the legal hassle...he should thank you for it.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2005 01:36:14 PM · #16 |
| I don't think the boss is actually reselling the image. I think what is happening is that the agency charges that much for the artwork in the publication. Kind of a "labor" charge, if you will. |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 01:39:24 PM · #17 |
..but then "markup" is the wrong word to use.
It sounds like the boss purchased and sold the image.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2005 01:47:38 PM · #18 |
If this boss guy is capable of making that much coin it only stands to reason that an industrious photog could, too. He be the smarter mouse is all. If someone made that much off my work, good for them - and stupid me for not thinking of it earlier.
Message edited by author 2005-05-28 13:08:57. |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 01:49:26 PM · #19 |
I have no idea about that, but here's how I interpreted it.
hypothetically
I make brochures for a living. Somone comes to me and wants 250 brochures advertising their piano tuning business. Cost is no object, just give them a quote before i do it. It may look something like this (please note, I am not in this business at all, so I don't know all the ins and outs) Actual costs are in ().
Paper for brochure $500 ($12.50)
Ink for brochure $25.00 ($0.75)
Design of brochure $75.00 hour for 10 hours ($15.00/hr for 10 hours)
Use of photography in brochure $168.50 ($0.20)
Printing of brochure $500 ($10.00)
Now, granted this is in no way possible (otherwise it better be a #$%@^@#$ good brochure for almost $1300 per 250, but from what I understand, that is a legitimate and legal use of the picture. He is not actually "reselling" the picture to be sold again, he is "reselling" the picture in a useful form.
I might also add that this is perhaps the most compelling argument I have against the microsites so far.
edited for clarity adn to correct some of the typos
Message edited by author 2005-05-27 17:51:13. |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 01:55:03 PM · #20 |
I've been struggling to come up with a way of explaining how I feel about these sites, and I think I've got the perfect analogy - chocolates.
Not all chocolates are created equal. Some are truly great chocolates, and deserve to be valued. These are the ones that are sold at high price, in tiny quantities, in expensive chocolate boutiques.
Some are not great chocolates. They are good, generic chocolate that are sold for a few pennies, by the pound, in large volumes in supermarkets.
Now then, some chocolatiers focus on crafting only the finest chocolates, and look down their noses at the makers of 'penny' chocolate. Some chocolatiers take the view that quantity is the way to go, pile em high, sell em cheap.
Personally, some of my chocolates are the fine belgian dark chocolate kind and I'll sell them for serious money through a serious agency like Alamy. Some of my chocolates, however, are unremarkable. There's nothing WRONG with them, but they're not fine belgian chocolates - more like hershey's kisses. So I'll put them in a big bag labelled 'shutterstock' and put them on the supermarket shelf and although each individual kiss might only be earning me pennies, if I make sure those bags are full enough and selling fast enough then I'll be doing alright. Hersheys, after all, has not (to my knowledge) gone backrupt.
In other words, what's right for you isn't right for everyone else - and what's suitable to sell one way isn't suitable to sell another.
I have pictures I'm really proud of, that I've worked hard on, that are technically really solid - those are, to me, too valuable to put on a shutterstock-like site so Alamy get them (now if only they would sell...!) But I've also got pictures that I took in a couple of minutes, invested a couple more in prepping. They aren't _great_ shots, although they're technically sound. But for some reason they don't reach the standards I've set myself for Alamy images, so I'll send them somewhere else. Sure, someone might make $100 using my picture while I get $0.20. But if I've done a good job then there are a bundle of other people also giving me their $0.20 - and maybe some of them too are making money off my work. Good for them, and thanks for the pennies. They add up, as Walmart will tell you.
What you have to ask yourself is, are you happy with what you get? I cannot imagine making thousands of dollars off any individual image I would submit to a shutterstock-like site. If I could see a way of doing it, then I would - I'd send them to a traditional agency like Alamy. If someone else manages to do so, then good for them! If many people want to give me some pennies to try and make thousands all the better.
For those of you ranting against these evil people making money off your hard work, I have news for you. This already happens, every day. It's how the world works! When Alamy sell your image, the guy buying it is intending to make money off the deal. When I write a computer program, chances are the guy who's paying me to do it is going to make plenty more selling it on. This is the way capitalism works - aint it great?
|
|
|
|
05/27/2005 01:57:36 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
If someone made that much off my work, good for them - and stupid me for not thinking of it earlier. |
You see, you've managed to say basically what I was but in a single sentence :-) |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 01:58:26 PM · #22 |
| dang, ganders, now I'm hungry |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 01:58:38 PM · #23 |
.
Message edited by author 2005-07-10 20:08:02. |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 02:05:25 PM · #24 |
| I would imagine that any restrictions imposed are implicitly forwarded to further recipients - otherwise it would be perfectly legal, for example, for me to buy a copy of MS-Windows and then sell copies to everyone I know for $0.20 because I was the one licensing it from Microsoft, not them. |
|
|
|
05/27/2005 03:15:27 PM · #25 |
anders - i agree with you totally ... I'm also dappling in the tock stuff - but not all my prints images are there ... just specifically images that are normally just sitting on my computer and now they can sit at a site where i'll makde some moeny - more effort i put into a shot - i'm gonna charge more through my prints .. not stock
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2025 02:10:53 AM EDT.
