MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: faber on June 05, 2008, 05:24
-
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38865
That's sure great for everybody who was involved.
On the other hand, I begin to understand why macrostock pro-photographers are so angry about the microstock business. Mixed emotions here....
-
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38865[/url]
That's sure great for everybody who was involved.
On the other hand, I begin to understand why macrostock pro-photographers are so angry about the microstock business. Mixed emotions here....
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.
-
I just browsed though the thread at shutterstock....and I only found one post that I completely agree with -> from epixx (page 4):
.......Am I the only one who see a dark side here? You get to the front cover of TIME, you are not credited and you're paid $28............
No big reaction of the other phogs, but a lot of "hurray, microstock rocks..."
There are other threads here and in other forums about "undervalue your work" - and I think this example fits well.
I began to upload to alamy last month so maybe this changed my point of view compared to what I thought when I started doing microstock in March 2007.......
-
He got exactly 22,22$ for it (Nice Schnapszahl for german speakers). So nobody can complain he got only a few cents for it ;)
-
What would they pay for that photo from a traditional agency? I would of thought a few thousand dollars. Nice to have that on the CV though.
-
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".
-
Yeech. Yeah nice tearsheet but the excitement would wear off quickly seeing the earnings.
This is one reason why my people shots and other stuff that is unique or difficult to capture will be going to RM.
-
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 ;)
-
Wow you guys moan a lot... He didnt just get 20 dollars for it- he sold it probably hundreds of times. Time only pays a few bucks for this because that's what images are worth now! Nothing wrong with that. I certainly enjoy my massive payslips. We all obviously think it's worth it or we wouldnt keep doing it.
-
Yes you are right Tim it's his second best seller at IS with whoopy 12 downloads ;D Maybe it's better you start to make your third Batman-movie instead of posting nonsense ;D
-
.......Am I the only one who see a dark side here? You get to the front cover of TIME, you are not credited and you're paid $28............
No big reaction of the other phogs, but a lot of "hurray, microstock rocks..."
There are other threads here and in other forums about "undervalue your work" - and I think this example fits well.
I began to upload to alamy last month so maybe this changed my point of view compared to what I thought when I started doing microstock in March 2007.......
Same thoughts here...
-
Yeech. Yeah nice tearsheet but the excitement would wear off quickly seeing the earnings.
This is one reason why my people shots and other stuff that is unique or difficult to capture will be going to RM.
right.
-
...There are other threads here and in other forums about "undervalue your work" - and I think this example fits well...
Betsy Reid? Is that you? ;)
This is microstock. We all know quite well when we sign on with a company that our images will be bought by a wide variety of people and companies for an equally wide array of uses. If it leaves a bitter taste to see a microstock image in the cover of Time, maybe this isn't the right place for you to sell images.
-
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!
-
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!
Yup, it's all about having appropriate Extended License.
To me there is a huge difference between a small local publication with 250,000 prints with a small budget and Time with more than 4 million prints and international coverage, don't you agee Helix7?
-
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 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?
Short answer: yes, of course!
A bit like RM works.
EL should require the buyer to answer a small questionnaire, and based on his answers he would get a quote.
-
I find it funny when some people suddenly realize the cons of microstock...
Anyway:
EL should require the buyer to answer a small questionnaire, and based on his answers he would get a quote.
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
-
This is exactly why I just figured out that my portfolios on micros are just not going to get more pics in...
The last 3 months Alamy has lead my earnings without much hassle... Even ONE sale at Alamy outperforms most of my micros (at least 4 out of 6)...
And then this TIME thing... it is an absolute insult. It just proves that micros are targeting big time corporate buyers, pocketing their big earnings and leaving us peanuts...
-
... No big reaction of the other phogs, but a lot of "hurray, microstock rocks..."
There are other threads here and in other forums about "undervalue your work" - and I think this example fits well.
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.
... I began to upload to alamy last month so maybe this changed my point of view compared to what I thought when I started doing microstock in March 2007.......
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.
-
There you go ... HermanM posted his response just as I was typing mine.
We're beginning to see a movement amongst the good photographers whilst the snappers stay on the Microstocks and post "Yay! iShutterstime rocks!" on their forums.
-
...There are other threads here and in other forums about "undervalue your work" - and I think this example fits well...
Betsy Reid? Is that you? ;)
This is microstock. We all know quite well when we sign on with a company that our images will be bought by a wide variety of people and companies for an equally wide array of uses. If it leaves a bitter taste to see a microstock image in the cover of Time, maybe this isn't the right place for you to sell images.
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.
-
There you go ... HermanM posted his response just as I was typing mine.
We're beginning to see a movement amongst the good photographers whilst the snappers stay on the Microstocks and post "Yay! iShutterstime rocks!" on their forums.
Well, this was not my intention when I started this thread....I don't even know whether or not I'm a good photographer, that's up to the customers to decide (still have no sales yet at alamy....).
And I wouldn't say that everybody who praises microstock is a "snapper". A lot of excellent phogs are there. But all the time since I joined this business I asked myself: "why do the really good phogs sell their excellent photos at microstock sites - couldn't they earn more at traditional sites?".
It was just to share my uncertainty - and to receive sentiments of those who know more about this business than I do.
-
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
-
There you go ... HermanM posted his response just as I was typing mine.
We're beginning to see a movement amongst the good photographers whilst the snappers stay on the Microstocks and post "Yay! iShutterstime rocks!" on their forums.
And I wouldn't say that everybody who praises microstock is a "snapper".
Nor would I ... and I didn't say that. The microstocks have a lot going for them, and they've certainly opened up the market.
A lot of excellent phogs are there.
I agree with you 100%. My post wasn't meant to be anti-microstock. I was just observing what could be a trend, one which would be good for photographers.
As it is, you've got to agree that getting paid $28 for the front cover of Time (or, at least, part of it), and without any acknowledgment of your work, is a significant underpayment and does the photographer down.
In the past, getting your image on the front cover of a magazine of that stature would mean that you had it made as a photographer.
It's interesting that it isn't until page 2 of the Shutterstock forum thread that someone says anything more that "Way cool!!!!" and it isn't until page 4 that someone comes out with it "Am I the only one who see a dark side here?"
Let's face facts. Time got a superb image at a giveaway price. I sense - from this thread as well as from talking to other people - that an increasing number of those who can produce such images are beginning to realise this, while others are still burbling "Way cool!!!!!"
-
It would be nice (albeit confusing) to have more licensing options for images. I think that a small image that is used on a website, or someones blog isn't neccesarily worth much more than $1.00, but if an image is used on a billboard, national compaign, or very popular magazine cover it IS worth more than $1.00, or $28.00
The problem is that in making images available for the 'fair' $1.00 uses it has also been made fair for big production uses.
If there could be licensing which forced smaller print runs or else higher fees that would be nice.
-
I don't know, would it really be so confusing (at least not more than RM/L)?
If a stock site would be able to properly manage a "you get what you need for the best/appropriate price" approach, everybody would be happy.
Prices could range from 1$ to maybe thousands of dollars depending on the use of the image. And all this heated microstock vs. macrostock discussion would just implode and vanish.....
Maybe that's naive - but being naive is one privilege of newbies... ;)
-
Perhaps Cutcaster will do that. I hope that site is a success.
-
I agree with Leaf.
I'm a contributor to micro and macro, and macro is not just Alamy for me i also have a (much smaller) RM-Portfolio at one of the biggies and several other RM- and RF-Portfolios at smaller Trads.
My Portfolios at micro and macro are extremely different (you probably wouldn't believe it it's the same photographer).
In general i like the idea of microstock and i also see the need for it, but i always had reservations against the nearly unlimited usage restrictions this is in my opinion completely unneccessary because a stricter restrictions for big usage wouldn't destroy the idea of microstock at all.
My personal experience of the last four years is that microstock was in the beginning very easy money no trad could compete with it even the biggies.
But these days are gone the trads in the middle (like Alamy) did suffer from microstock no doubt about it, but microstock become so competitive that even Alamy now can nearly compete the earnings possibilities of the micros (but please don't expect very typical microstuff bought through trads these times are gone) the earnings possibilities at the biggies are now much better than the micros unfortunately it is extremely hard to get anything in their collections.
Another note is that all my trads treat me much much fairer than the micros they all offer reasonable commissions (my lowest is 40%) and don't trying to fool me like FT did with how they introduced subsription etc. I feel very respected by them and not just like a number like the micros treat me.
I still produce stuff which simply perfectly fit in the microstock-market so i won't give up microstock completely but i put much more energy in the traditional market.
One advice for all which wanna go this way - you have to be very patient everything goes much slower there and you need reasonable sized portfolios to see any results.
-
A lot of people in the stock industry use the buzzword 'production value' when judging about the quality of an image. This is a mix of criteria like time and effort for shooting and postproduction, ease of imitation by others, market demand, availability of releases, etc.
Looking at the frustrating TIME example it might be a good idea to adapt this model.
For example put only stuff with low production values on sites with lots of subscription sales. Give images with a medium production value only to sites focussed on single sales and offer the very best stuff only via macro agencies like Alamy or Photoshelter.
This would allow you to play at all price points without different outlets cannibalizing each other.
-
Give images with a medium production value only to sites focussed on single sales and offer the very best stuff only via macro agencies like Alamy or Photoshelter.
That statement is fast becoming redundant.
-
Give images with a medium production value only to sites focussed on single sales and offer the very best stuff only via macro agencies like Alamy or Photoshelter.
That statement is fast becoming redundant.
Meaning what? Do you disagree or do you feel this is already common knowledge?
-
Give images with a medium production value only to sites focussed on single sales and offer the very best stuff only via macro agencies like Alamy or Photoshelter.
That statement is fast becoming redundant.
Meaning what? Do you disagree or do you feel this is already common knowledge?
No I mean that there aren't many sites that focus on single sales now, they're all adding subscription packages.
-
No I mean that there aren't many sites that focus on single sales now, they're all adding subscription packages.
Finally got it!
My current list looks like this.
Low End: SS, DT, FT, 123
Mid: IS with subs, StockXpert w/o subs
High End: Alamy and hopefully soon some others
-
Wow you guys moan a lot... He didnt just get 20 dollars for it- he sold it probably hundreds of times. Time only pays a few bucks for this because that's what images are worth now! Nothing wrong with that. I certainly enjoy my massive payslips. We all obviously think it's worth it or we wouldnt keep doing it.
Wow, you obviously know more about my sales than I do. This image have brought me about 40 dollars in total so far, $22.22 of those being the EL that Time bought from iStockphoto. While it would be superb for a standard microstock image, for something that appeared on the Time cover it's nothing to write home about. Yes, I can brag now, and I most certainly will, but I seriously started considering other options.
-
So it looks like we might be seeing SGC over on the Macro's some time soon!
-
... Yes, I can brag now, and I most certainly will, but I seriously started considering other options.
Tearsheets don't count for one iota in the stock business. Sure, it's nice to get a prominent placement, but the only thing to benefit will be your ego. If you were a client-driven commercial photographer, this would probably open a few doors, and you could certainly approach a few notable and well-connected agents with it.
As it stands, though, with you being a part-time amateur, the only thing you'll get out of it is bragging rights and a feeling that you should have been paid more. I can imagine the look on people's faces when you tell them that you received only $22.22! Kind of embarrassing, huh?
On the flip side, this is the kind of publicity that may really benefit IS. Potential customers that may have previously dismissed microstock as being "amateurish" may now take a serious look at it. Which is good for all of us.
-
Though i understand your post i don't know what iota actually mean?
-
Though i understand your post i don't know what iota actually mean?
I used it in an abbreviated context. It's normally used in the common English phrase not one iota of difference to signify a meaningless distinction.
-
Yes, I can brag now, and I most certainly will, but I seriously started considering other options.
Interesting. I found one of my images on a magazine cover too. Not nearly as prestigious as Time (congratulations on that one) but a glossy publication aimed at very rich Chinese.
On the one hand it's satisfying. On the other hand it's galling that they paid only $20 for it. I don't want to spread the news too widely in case I get the inevitable question "How much did you get for it then?" :-[
I too am considering my options. And I don't think we two are the only ones.
-
For me the drama would be the lack of the "credit" not the money.
I have done a few front covers on assignment and got $450 each so the $ is not enough to make you rich.
Also, despite those front covers, I have never had another assignment job ...
-
I've got a better rub. The publisher contacted me to see if I was okay with my photo on this book cover (controversial) and asked me to provide a release (I mentioned a book cover before, but it was finally released this month so here it is)
To send the release it cost me a special trip to post office for a non-domestic 90 cent (plus GST) stamp and then my kid put it in her sticker book. I had to buy another stamp, and another trip to pick it up (but gas was only around a buck a litre last fall...) and I was paid a whole dollar on BigStock for it.
Microstock is what it is... but this is the first time it has cost me money to sell a photo!
Hmm... I think my tearsheet says How to RAISE a serial killer - but here it is.
(http://www.pixartdesign.com/images/WebPhotoLinks/SerialKiller.jpg)
-
I also found it funny that a rock band had paid $1 for a photo for their CD cover and then had the nerve to complain about iTunes selling individual songs off the album "for a few cents".
-
Interesting. I found one of my images on a magazine cover too. Not nearly as prestigious as Time (congratulations on that one) but a glossy publication aimed at very rich Chinese.
On the one hand it's satisfying. On the other hand it's galling that they paid only $20 for it. I don't want to spread the news too widely in case I get the inevitable question "How much did you get for it then?" :-[
I too am considering my options. And I don't think we two are the only ones.
Indeed. I don't feel ashamed by the amount of money I got from this, I think I can live with just the publicity. Besides, Time updated the credits on the website, so I can use their link now. But all in all I think I'll change my strategy on what I put and where.
Congrats on the cover, very nicely executed, by the way (I think I've seen it on the SS forum).
-
Wow you guys moan a lot... He didnt just get 20 dollars for it- he sold it probably hundreds of times. Time only pays a few bucks for this because that's what images are worth now! Nothing wrong with that. I certainly enjoy my massive payslips. We all obviously think it's worth it or we wouldnt keep doing it.
i will have to agree. 22 dollars is still a lot more than say 50 cents.
what if you were paid 50 cents, or 5 dollars without having seen your image was used on TIme.
i think you would be celebrating.
the way i see it ... i wouldn't moan, and the more you moan, the more ppl like Time will look at it and stop using your images.
then ... perharps, you will have a justified reason to moan ;)
catch my drift?
-
Hi SGC
Did you see the bit in the Bottom, Buy this in a Frame from $15.99 ::)
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080602,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080602,00.html)
I did click the link and it took me to another company, Barwells but the cover was not there.
-
Hi SGC
Did you see the bit in the Bottom, Buy this in a Frame from $15.99 ::)
[url]http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080602,00.html[/url] ([url]http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080602,00.html[/url])
I did click the link and it took me to another company, Barwells but the cover was not there.
NOW, that's just the thing I despise about newspapers,magazines,etc.
They charge their readers for a reprint and the photographer knows nothing about that.
I think in this case, the selling of framed prints,etc... is copyright infringement, or worst, hijack of an artist's work.
Booo! :o
-
This thread reminds me of a discussion I had with a colleague from SP long ago, when I learned that he had some of his very professional work in microstock, and was so excited with SS (he always tried to make me join it). He didn't care about the price those images were sold at, as long as money was pouring in.
I was surprised in my first contact with microstock that images could be used over and over. It seemed such an unfair deal for the photographer, although I could see the reasoning behind this (once you sell it, you have no real control over it, especially in worldwide terms).
But I do think usages should be very restrictive to avoid a situation like this. Even if there was work on the image to produce the cover, come on, it's a BIG magazine. It's not that "they can afford it" (we don't require a proof of poverty from buyers...), but the fact that an image for this usage is certainly worth much more.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
Hi SGC
Did you see the bit in the Bottom, Buy this in a Frame from $15.99 ::)
[url]http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080602,00.html[/url] ([url]http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080602,00.html[/url])
I did click the link and it took me to another company, Barwells but the cover was not there.
NOW, that's just the thing I despise about newspapers,magazines,etc.
They charge their readers for a reprint and the photographer knows nothing about that.
I think in this case, the selling of framed prints,etc... is copyright infringement, or worst, hijack of an artist's work.
Booo! :o
Thanks for the link, guys, I'll ask Time about why it does not work.
As for reprinting for profit etc., the iStock extended license allows all of that, so there is nothing illegal in their actions. See the appropriate item in here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/extended_license_provisions.php
-
Wouldn't such use (cover + resale of prints) require purchasing two extended licences thou (unlimited run + resale)?
-
Yes, they are not allowed to sell it without an EL.
-
2 things really come home to me reading this thread.
1. The cheek of Time magazine not so much to use a stock photo on their cover, but to SELL the cover. I would imagine this is taking it way to far.
2. Why I would never upload images with a model, family member or not, to a microstock company. The stuff I limit to micro is everyday stuff that is basically only good for websites, or a little advertisement, or a PowerPoint demo. If I were you guys with access to models and good studio equipment, I would only send that to a macro or mid macro. At least you get a few bucks, and the model may even be able to get some credit.
-
2 things really come home to me reading this thread.
1. The cheek of Time magazine not so much to use a stock photo on their cover, but to SELL the cover. I would imagine this is taking it way to far.
2. Why I would never upload images with a model, family member or not, to a microstock company. The stuff I limit to micro is everyday stuff that is basically only good for websites, or a little advertisement, or a PowerPoint demo. If I were you guys with access to models and good studio equipment, I would only send that to a macro or mid macro. At least you get a few bucks, and the model may even be able to get some credit.
1. There's nothing wrong, the EL (according to the link that I posted earlier) permits all that. Maybe I didn't see what you saw.
2. Good point. One possible strategy is "upload best shots to macros, outtakes to micros". Don't know how that one works out, though.
-
...