MicrostockGroup

It's a combination of two photos. The photographer of the face didn't even get a credit. He probably got an EL. I'm sure the Photoshop artist got a whole lot more. They don't work for pennies.

He got exactly 22,22$ for it (Nice Schnapszahl for german speakers). So nobody can complain he got only a few cents for it

We've asked in the past for the regular license to be written to be more restrictive.  It's too bad this kind of usage is so "affordable".

At the very least the license should require a full credit.  And while it is a good tearsheet and it could be very beneficial for the photographer's portfolio, 20-odd bucks is really lousy.

but really I'd live with the payout, the lack of credit would drive me nuts

Yes you are right Tim it's his second best seller at IS with whoopy 12 downloads Maybe it's better you start to make your third Batman-movie instead of posting nonsense

right.

Actually Helix nobody really complained! And there is no reason a usage like this could be higher priced and still selling normal usage for 1 dollar.
The Time could easily afford a higher price they charge six digit sums for an small ad in their magazine.
This is microstock and it can remain like that but some usages could be adjusted, we are speaking of a circulation over 4.000.000!

I do agree that there is a difference, but the scale will look unbalanced no matter how you compare usages. You say 250,000 prints is small. Some would say that's huge, and 50,000 is small, or 5,000, which is more the scale of some local publications. So then do we create specific licenses for all those uses?

I find it funny when some people suddenly realize the cons of microstock...

Anyway:

BigStock's EL pricing is interesting because they have different prices for different uses.  Not so many choices and price ranges as RM usually does, but it is an interesting approach.

I have asked it before and got no answer: can an image be used for a CD cover without an EL?

Regards,
Adelaide

Just to put some figures to this. I am also a writer, and I know that if you can get a 1-page essay into Time you get $1'000+ for it (I still live in hope of that).

This is, effectively, a 1-page essay (except it's just a visual one). On the negative side, the Shutterstock photog didn't create it, and his image is only part of it. On the positive side, it's the front cover of a magazine with massive circulation.

So ... bearing those points in mind, a $20 EL makes it look as if his image has been significantly undersold.

Exactly. I think what's happening is that good new photographers are beginning to realise what their work is worth.

In the past, with film and it's limitations, photography was a specialist occupation. Now, with digital and microstock, loads of people equipped with little more than a good amateur's camera (and sometimes not even that) are getting in on the act.

As always, there are the crap, the average, and the good.  The more this sort of thing happens, the more those good photographers are going to migrate away from microstock. They're going to move to agencies that will give them a decent return on their creativity.

And I suspect the microstocks are beginning to realise this.

well, I don't know who Betsy Reid is....but otherwise I agree with you.

When I signed up at microstock sites I was fully aware of the regulations and I do not complain about being cheated by them (it was not my image anyway...).

But as time goes by, I learn more - not just about photography (hopefully) but about the photo - business (definitely). Based on this knowledge and insight my perception is changing. And therefore my decisions might be different in the future. I guess it's the usual learning process if you enter a new business. Nothing wrong with this.

This just proves the fact that there is no gap Macro to Micro in quality and the cost of the Image is way down the list, and that top buyers shop everywhere and there is no stigma in shopping on the Micro's, this image was not really $28 to TIME, there was the research, the photoshop work etc:

They would have likely not even considered the source and price, it was the image they needed to tell the story and grab the attention of the readers, so they would have paid $20 or $1000 for the right Image, as a commisioned shoot would have cost a lot more.

How often do you read threads of doom when a Micro increases it's prices it they increased the price by 50% and sold 50% less, they would still make more profit as the overheads would be reduced.

What is the difference in selling two licences for a $200 net return on Alamy or 600 to 800 downloads for a $200 net return on Shutterstock, its the same return but the the amount of overhead to the Micro photographer in taking the images keywording and uploading is far greater.

I moved from Micro to Macro when one single Alamy download returned more revenue than 40 to 50 Images on the Micro's, this was when I saw the true value of my work, which I had thought was not good enough for the Macro site buyers.

David