I am hijacking this reply from another thread that Stockasic posted and feel this is a good question. There are many mixed views on various sites etc., but what do you feel is fair for all microstock photographers.

"Here's something to speculate about...

Let's go a few years into the future. Imagine that most of today's contributors have long since given up on microstock - even newbies and hobbyists no longer find it interesting or fun.   The huge archives of SS are starting to look tired and dated. Buyers are complaining, sales are declining.  The people running SS decide they need to get fresh material.  And the only way to do it is to actually find some capable photographers and start paying them to do stock - and paying them enough to make it worthwhile.

How much would they have to pay?"

My answer would be this... and it would apply to all microstock sites whether one is exclusive or non-exclusive.


Ban subs on all sites as they really are evil and the eventual kiss of death for all of us.

Web: personal/blog/editorial $5-$7 per download.

Web: all commercial sites $10 - $15 per download.

Print: personal/blog/editorial $20 - $25 per download. any size.

Print: all commercial usage $30 - $40 per download. any size.

Extended licenses as currently applied on whichever site you are on.

Royalty: 35% - 40%.

This would still keep it micro priced and make is sustainable for everyone, agencies, buyers, and most importantly contributors to keep the good stuff rolling in.

Good list Shudderstock.   I'd like to add that all sites need to be open about every distribution partner and the distribution partners should have to follow the same or better pricing and pay rates.

No stock site can survive on those prices, they will be out of business because of lack of buyers.

The whole industry needs to collapse before any price increases happen and that doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon.

Don't want to be the gloom and doom guy, but you have to look at it like this: how low would photographers endure? Looking at 400k images added to ss every week, it looks like we're not even close there 😐  sorry

Actually, to be totally honest, I'd probably still be submitting to SS if I could get even $1 per sub sale. 

Who are all these corporate designers, with their big important projects that have to be done by Friday,  who can't pay $5 for a photo?  I don't believe that line, never did.  It's pure BS,  and I don't mean BigStock.

It's not that designers aren't willing to pay, they aren't the competition.

The other stock sites are the competition and they are driving each other down on prices.

Let's say "Stock Agency A" decided that paying %50 to photographers is a good idea and started to sell @ $5 for small up to $50 for full size photos with no subscription.

Even with hordes of photographers moving to "Stock Agency A", the other (current) very cheap sites will still have enough photos to attract the majority of stock buyers leaving very few buyers that need VERY good quality that go to "Stock Agency A" to buy photos. In turn, the new stock agency will declare bankrupcy or adapt very quickly to industry norms.

I believe a complete collapse needs to happen for this to change. Prices so low droves of pro photographers leave completely and have only very amateur photographers in their place that will in turn dillude stock agencies portfolio. But even then, the dillution and generaly acceptability of current photos will hold strong for a long time.

That's my opinion.

Or the other option is a union.  If there was only a person or group of people that were influential enough to band all stock photographers together and demand higher pricing.....or pull out all the photos

Alas, there will always be those that are OK with what they are getting paid and refuse to do even the little things like opting out of DPC.

Interesting question and the answers will be as diverse as we all are, from location, motivations, efforts and political leanings. (and I'm sure other differences or similarities)

Fair is this to me: If I accept the contract and supply a product to a company for resale, at their rates and pay... that's fair. I made that decision. If I don't accept the deal, percentage or feel it's UNFAIR I don't supply that company.

You and everyone else can pick and choose what you like or don't. I only represent myself. I'd really like it much better if some people would stop trying to influence and convince me, that their idea of FAIR, should be mine.

Agree to disagree, but lets all work on something other than division, negativity or attacking differences in how we each decide to market our creativity.

We are individuals, artistically and financially.

It would be fair to split the sale 50/50 between the agency and the photographer, but with one condition: the agency need to spend the same amount of time and investments as the photographer promoting and selling the images.

The correct pricing would then be the one that is profitable both for the agency and the photographer.

The OP's question actually has nothing to do with the current TOS, or what we "agreed to" when we signed up. 

It asks what SS might have to pay if they actually decided they needed new content in the future - years from now - and had to hire photographers, or attract new contributors, capable of producing it.