Author Topic: Agencies that accept Editorial Images? (Read 6572 times)

bizair · « **on:** December 10, 2010, 06:43 »

Hi All

Does anybody have a consolidated list of agencies that take editorial images? I know DT and SS do and a few others, but what I am looking for is a list iof already available or I'll start to compile one. Any help appreciated.

Thanks

Ken

ibogdan · « **Reply #1 on:** December 10, 2010, 07:25 »

123rf also accepts editorial.

fxegs · « **Reply #2 on:** December 10, 2010, 07:36 »

and Bigstock, Panthermedia, Cutcaster

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #3 on:** December 15, 2010, 18:41 »

And now Istock.

SNP · « **Reply #4 on:** December 15, 2010, 18:57 »

Alamy

RacePhoto · « **Reply #5 on:** December 16, 2010, 13:52 »

Quote from: fxegs on December 10, 2010, 07:36

and Bigstock, Panthermedia, Cutcaster

Funny thing was Panther asked me for a release and proof that I was allowed to take editorial images. What the heck is that about? News is news, isn't it?

Oh wait, IS says news, sports and celebrity aren't acceptable editorial.

I had more than one rejection on SS, with proper caption, date, location Etc. showing 1920s fashion, (maybe a stretch but better than some others) that it wasn't newsworthy. But a scan of some everyday object was OK. what?

Point is, not all sites that take "Editorial" actually take all Editorial...

Maybe someone can comment on BS and their policies, I gave up on them a few months ago. Might be worth continuing again, or at least until I reach payout, so I can collect and quit!

I'm about ready to start my own site for just one small area of images. Sorry, no phony micro agency, no promises and no contributors. At least none planned. Just a cobweb site to try to sell some things that agencies have been refusing, and I think have a market. Then the big issue, no one will know it exists and there will be no sales or buyers.

fxegs · « **Reply #6 on:** December 17, 2010, 07:40 »

Well, in fact, different agencies understand 'editorial images' differently. For example, Dreamstime accepts almost all, whilst Bigstock reject the ones that don't represent news or recent events. At least for me.

RacePhoto, you have nothing to lose with your own site, since you will still working with other agencies, and is a new market for your rejected pics. I think it is a good idea. You only have to announce it wisely. In forums, social media, etc. Do you use Linked In? There are some groups about buying and selling images, and a lot of suggestions to promote your work. I wish you good luck.

louoates · « **Reply #7 on:** December 17, 2010, 09:37 »

Race...great idea about unsold images and I like the name Cobweb Images. It congers up old dusty out-of-the-mainstream stuff you might find in am attic in a long abandoned house. I've got loads of them also but no desire to put any more work into them. Do you accept donations? How about exclusive donations?

RacePhoto · « **Reply #8 on:** December 18, 2010, 00:30 »

Quote from: louoates on December 17, 2010, 09:37

Race...great idea about unsold images and I like the name Cobweb Images. It congers up old dusty out-of-the-mainstream stuff you might find in am attic in a long abandoned house. I've got loads of them also but no desire to put any more work into them. Do you accept donations? How about exclusive donations?

The term Cobweb pages is pretty old. (hmm, maybe that's appropriate?) I started calling pages that are created and seldom or never updated "cobweb" pages.

People start things and then they just sit and gather cobwebs. I know of a site that's ten years old that still says coming soon on it.

I don't know what to call the new phenomena which is pages that come up near the top of searches, but don't exist anymore? Many will take you to some generic landing page full of ads, but some just get you nowhere to a missing link on the host, site not found. Hey wait, aren't people trying to find ways to get into the beginning of the searches, and here we have pages that are, and don't exist.

OK if I get around to starting my own site, (beyond the dozen or so that I dabble with now) I have no expectations that anyone will find it or buy from it, but what the hey, I might as well create it anyway? I'm not giving up the concept, but it's not the motorsport site which would be much easier to justify. Motor Racing, low demand and it's well covered by Getty, Corbis, and LAT. Could be that a mid or micro site could get into that, but I doubt if there's a strong enough market to support a business. All kinds of legal wrangling and access controls as well.

I started a sales site for some products a few years ago. Never got past, testing and planning. Now and then someone finds it and buys something. Last time I think I lost money because the shipping was more than the profit. Really short margin.

Yeah, that's the ticket. People can put images up for sale and if they sell, I pay nothing in return, which will go perfectly with the no marketing and no promises. Unless of course it's actually a profitable sale. Mark this site, labor of love, not for profit... However everything would be On Demand, no accounts, no subs, no nothing. You want it, you pay, you get it. Down and dirty, simple.