Hey Yuri,

 Congratulations. We all knew it was just a matter of time. Beer is on you

Best,
Jonathan

Beer?
Champagne!

If he is a real Dane he will prefer beer!  congrats!

I thought I'd link into Mark Stout's blog here, he is always pretty vocal about his attitude toward microstock, and he brings up the Lund/Arcurs interview:

http://markstoutphotography.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/tide-turns-on-microstock/

Most of that is fairly sensible, although I thought this part was unintended humor:
'I would like to close this with a thank you to Yuri Arcurs.  I have long respected the quality of your work and your open door policy toward other photographers coupled with your willingness to share your success.'

What has eroded his earning power, but the competition trained by the 'open door policy' et al?  Maybe he's applauding it because it was part of the puzzle that led everyone to his perceived cliff of change...

No humor intended at all.  Perhaps I need to clarify some, but there are two points I made in addition to this: one is that there is plenty of work out there for all of us if we all learn to license our work for what it is worth and support business models that do the same and two, that I believe the reason so many have turned to microstock is that the door was closed to us in terms of information on professional licensing models, and to the agencies that would license our work.  The traditional stock agencies, and the established pros simply  turned a cold shoulder to those looking for how to break into the industry and the consequence was microstock, which has put many of the traditional stock houses out of business by throwing the door open wide and dropping prices to the sub-basement - and seriously harmed the income of a number of established photographers.

Hence, why I say I applaud Yuri's open door policy.  Had this been the case the chances are a business model would have evolved that opened the door to anyone with the actual talent and experience to produce the work needed with a licensing model that sustains the cost of production instead of one that simply erodes the foundation by giving away the farm.

No humor intended at all.  Perhaps I need to clarify some, but there are two points I made in addition to this: one is that there is plenty of work out there for all of us if we all learn to license our work for what it is worth and support business models that do the same and two, that I believe the reason so many have turned to microstock is that the door was closed to us in terms of information on professional licensing models, and to the agencies that would license our work.  The traditional stock agencies, and the established pros simply  turned a cold shoulder to those looking for how to break into the industry and the consequence was microstock, which has put many of the traditional stock houses out of business by throwing the door open wide and dropping prices to the sub-basement - and seriously harmed the income of a number of established photographers.

Hence, why I say I applaud Yuri's open door policy.  Had this been the case the chances are a business model would have evolved that opened the door to anyone with the actual talent and experience to produce the work needed with a licensing model that sustains the cost of production instead of one that simply erodes the foundation by giving away the farm.

There's not 'plenty of work out there' at all. There's a limited amount of work, or licenses to be sold, spread between an ever-growing number of contributors who are producing an absurd amount of new images.

You can stand there applauding as many 'open door policies' as you like but it won't do anything to help. The farm's already gone mate __ for good. There's a little thing called 'supply & demand' at play. If you think it's bad now then pop by in 2-3 more years.

Well, there actually isn't enough work for everyone.  There are lots of people with talent, and now that the door is open, the supply is huge.  You can't say that if Getty just let everyone join we'd all be sellin 400 $300 licenses a day.

   Do you really think that that the reason microstock pays so little to contributors is because Yuri told too many people about the world of microstock? There isn't enough work for everyone because digital cameras and photoshop have made it easy for anyone to shoot a reasonably good picture. If Yuri helps someone with talent do a better job, that moves the bar up a little for everyone. The only ones really hurt are the ones who should not be trying to play at being a professional photographer.

Quote from: sjlocke on January 24, 2011, 21:15

Well, there actually isn't enough work for everyone.  There are lots of people with talent, and now that the door is open, the supply is huge.  You can't say that if Getty just let everyone join we'd all be sellin 400 $300 licenses a day.

That's the point.  If you were selling $300 licenses, instead of a dollar, you wouldn't have to license 400 images a day to make it.  There is plenty of work for all of us if we learn to value our work... but no, the market does not have enough image demand to support a business model that allows the work to be had for a buck.

We can't all sell enough $300 licenses to support ourselves.  The buyer base for $300 a piece content is not that large.

Actually, the buyer base for micropricing is infinitely (ok, well not that much) bigger than the number of buyers that can afford $500 for _an_ image.  Students, scrapbookers, scout flyer designers, micro-businesses, personal bloggers, etc.

  You're not going to get into that again, but you still keep posting that canard as if it's fact. As in " What has eroded his earning power, but the competition trained by the 'open door policy' et al?"

He and others bemoan sales losses to competition.  Yet they actively train those competitors.  It's not rocket science.

Quote from: markstout on January 24, 2011, 20:58

Quote from: sjlocke on January 24, 2011, 20:42

Most of that is fairly sensible, although I thought this part was unintended humor:
'I would like to close this with a thank you to Yuri Arcurs.  I have long respected the quality of your work and your open door policy toward other photographers coupled with your willingness to share your success.'

What has eroded his earning power, but the competition trained by the 'open door policy' et al?  Maybe he's applauding it because it was part of the puzzle that led everyone to his perceived cliff of change...

No humor intended at all.  Perhaps I need to clarify some, but there are two points I made in addition to this: one is that there is plenty of work out there for all of us if we all learn to license our work for what it is worth and support business models that do the same and two, that I believe the reason so many have turned to microstock is that the door was closed to us in terms of information on professional licensing models, and to the agencies that would license our work.  The traditional stock agencies, and the established pros simply  turned a cold shoulder to those looking for how to break into the industry and the consequence was microstock, which has put many of the traditional stock houses out of business by throwing the door open wide and dropping prices to the sub-basement - and seriously harmed the income of a number of established photographers.

Hence, why I say I applaud Yuri's open door policy.  Had this been the case the chances are a business model would have evolved that opened the door to anyone with the actual talent and experience to produce the work needed with a licensing model that sustains the cost of production instead of one that simply erodes the foundation by giving away the farm.

Mark, the problem with your article is that you rely on an interview with one contributor and draw second hand inferences from it to make conclusions about an entire industry.

I think the central point of Yuri's article is that the non-iStock agencies have stuck to a model where big and successful contributors will inevitably face a decline in revenue, whereas the iStock model through increasing prices and offering different collections has actually had the opposite effect for many exclusives.  

Pickling out a few parts of the interview out of context and making conclusions the way you do may sound factual to the anti-microstock cheer-squad, but to anyone who actually knows a little bit more about the industry its obvious that you're really writing what you WANT to believe.

The possibility exists that I know the microstock industry, and the industry of photography as a whole considerably better than you presume here.  And perhaps I am drawing on a body of knowledge a bit broader than the one person I referenced.  You wouldn't know that.  You didn't bother to find out.  You just presumed. 

The possibility exists that I know the microstock industry, and the industry of photography as a whole considerably better than you presume here.  And perhaps I am drawing on a body of knowledge a bit broader than the one person I referenced.  You wouldn't know that.  You didn't bother to find out.  You just presumed. 

No I read your article and disagreed with the conclusions you made, based on my own understanding of the industry. Some points:

"They have one or two photographers who have done exceptionally well at it and held them up as examples of �how well you can do if you just invest more in your shoots, quit your day job and upload more.� "

There's a lot more than "one or two". Obviously how many depends on your definition of what makes up "exceptionally well". We all have different priorities in life. For many microstock photographers the real benefit isn't in getting rich, but in leading a lifestyle where they don't have to put up with regular clients or a regular employer. At the moment it takes well over 150,000 downloads to get into the top 50 at iStock - none of the contributors at that level are doing particularly badly - on my definition, they're all doing "exceptionally well". Bellow that level there are many photographers who are also doing "exceptionally well" even if they may not be placing orders for Porsches just yet. If earning a million dollar income is your sole criteria for determining "success" then microstock probably isn't the right choice though.

"He has now told the world the real scoop in his interview with Lund: my return per image has decreased with almost 1 USD a year since 2009. ..."

If you're assuming that quote means Yuri is earning $5.6 USD per image per year, then you're way off the mark. While I'd like to think that my RPI is higher than Yuri's, that' just isn't anywhere near the truth. What Yuri is hitting is a point that will apply in any format of the business - you just can't scale production in creative industries and expect future per-unit returns to be the same as before. Its only natural that he's looking for other avenues to diversify his business.

" Microstock has always been nothing other than a cancer that consumes its host and itself.  That day is almost here."

Very emotive, but also not particularly factual. You're far more right about the closed shop mentality of the "old" agencies as being a major contributor of their decline however.

"And the buyers are finding that using microstock can be a fatal mistake. "

I don't know anyone who has died from using microstock - the (un-sourced) examples you give are no different to an adult products company using one of your images illegally, or a contributor on a traditional agency doing the wrong thing such as by faking model releases etc. You can never have 100% control over the actions of other people, whether they are employees or a selected group of suppliers. Obviously there are some situations where a microstock image isn't the best choice - buyers just need to consider their needs.

"As long as photographers allow their work to be licensed for a dime and used without restrictions, the abuses will continue. "
Again I could be wrong but I don't really see too many images for sale on the sites for this amount. The microstock "Royalty Free" license has plenty of restrictions. While many sites initially undershot the mark with pricing, the figures have been trending upwards in recent years. Without microstock, I think we'd see a much bigger impact from free images available through Creative Commons licenses.  

You're right in the perception that many contributors are unhappy with reduced share of revenues, but that's a long way from the doom that you're predicting, and no different from what happened in the traditional agencies in the past.  

  Students, scrapbookers, scout flyer designers, micro-businesses, personal bloggers, etc.

Did you really actually saw these kind of usages? There are few probably but I never saw them personally what I saw was Microstock-Images in advertising campaign of Dell, Apple and so on that easily did cost a 5 to 6 figure sum but the pictures they used just did cost a few bucks.
I think you are largely underestimate that buyers are willing to pay if the pictures really fit their demands.
I don't have a problem that students would use my images for a buck or free but they are not the main buyers of Microstock-Images.

Hello Everyone.

Let me first introduce myself to the ones that I haven't had the pleasure to meet yet. My name is Kasper and I am the Vice President of Yuri Arcurs Photography. I have been working with Yuri more or less since he started contributing to microstock, but without contributing to this forum until now.

One of the things I have been very occupied with, is the legal aspects of microstock, which is why I have decided to reply to this threat. There is no such thing as micro-legal, which in other words means that everything that smells just the least of infringement or misuse of any kind has to be taken very seriously. This goes for microstock, as in every other industry.

Yuri Arcurs Photography has been in touch with Thinkstock and iStockphoto concerning the Model Releases put up for sale on their site. This is of course something that we have never approved for or let alone been informed about, and we take it very serious. Status is, that the Model Releases that was, by mistake, up for sale has been taken down yesterday and we are still working on mapping out this very unfortunate episode. Sadly, this is one of the things that can happen in a complex, and unstandardized online marketplace as microstock. Luckily, as Jonathan so very rightfully points out, there is a lot of eyes in an online marketplace as microstock which means that these incidents rarely are left unnoticed.

Thank you for noticing.

All the best,

Kasper.
Vice President, Yuri Arcurs Photography.