whether we pay this for it is moot. but the good news is that there is still someone willing to pay that kind of money for you or me. the secret is find him/her and having that image.
still, a rare proof (no pun intended) to dispell the going trend that photographs are only worth pennies.

If Peter Lik can do it. He sells his images at very high price. This photographer can also do it. If you have a buyer, everything explains for itself.

Image brief just licensed USD30,000 photo http://blog.imagebrief.com/. So it happened.

Interesting, that image is mediocre at best. The subject is spectacular tho, and most can't look beyond that for advanced, exotic concepts like "composition" I see taht all the time, some of my best sellers are my poorest shots. Just mind-numbingly boring shots selling dozen times daily.

That image would be perfect for a Cape Town business to hang in their lobby - I wonder what size print he sold.  Kudos to the photographer for pulling that off!

Quote from: onepointfour on August 01, 2014, 01:28

Image brief just licensed USD30,000 photo http://blog.imagebrief.com/. So it happened.

Interesting, that image is mediocre at best. The subject is spectacular tho, and most can't look beyond that for advanced, exotic concepts like "composition" I see taht all the time, some of my best sellers are my poorest shots. Just mind-numbingly boring shots selling dozen times daily.

wa, topol u say the :right-est" thing as usual.  it used to be in the 8x10,4x5 view camera, mid format to 35mm days where we used to be paid handsomely for excellent work , with inspiration from greats like Karsh , Adams, Eugene-Smith, Avedon (in those fields). then as the media became more accessible, so did the standard or needs fall. analogy would be music , jazz music for example is nowhere close to what they were in that same era of photography.
and as we look to our own earnings in micro, yes, it took reflects as you say, mind-numbingly boring shots, selling hundred of times, and even more mind-numbing boring shots paying biggest single download in my own portfolio.
when the ones you take pains to composition for colour, shades, lighting, ambience,etc..
i think some of them are still waiting for that big payoff in the sky.

what the clients take is not necessarily what we photographers would consider worth that much.
as richie blackmore say in one of his concert,... lady gaga... blows everyone away in crowd pulling,
but i would not even call that music.
going back to the old times, we also know the masters of painting were all starving , and only after death, they became "masters". long after worm took over their corpses, after they died of lead poisoning etc...  suddenly everyone calls them the great painter till today we even study them.

i think photography , microstock at least, is no different. although i don't think in 200 years, we will be talking about Y*** S****** etc.  then again, we might, as we still talk about Sam the Sham Wooly booly, and the Archies, Monkees,etc.. the microstock of music   

back to the photograph in topic, i think they will recoup that with advertising . in the same way, why would say in his heydays of tennis, Bjorn Bork was given free Mercedez, etc as endorsement? his name makes Mercedez money in return.  and i am sure they are still doing it with today 's tennis heroes.

Just had to design a brochure for one of my clients and purchased this file:
http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-92510755/stock-photo-overall-aerial-view-of-cape-town-south-africa.html?src=ck7lrqW1qoXtN6IdCAmA6Q-1-0
Paid 35 Cents ...

apple and orange

ok, now that i looked properly, it is not quite the same. same place differently shot. aerial shot vs canal.
the aerial shot would take a lot more stabilizing and meet with other factors like the movement of the plane, airdrift,etc. canal, i would think it was taken on a ferry which is pretty stable like many we used to make on the  Ferries . the vantage point is different. i guess u can say the same thing about many lifestyle micros shots vs a paid shoot.
still, the extra 000 does not hurt the photographer one bit. i would not complain either 
buys me a lot of Curvee Brut... maybe a whole winery cellar

I'm not in that income bracket, but that image is many times better than that flat canal shot that sold for a fortune, IMO. But whatever floats your boat.

Well you never did aerial photography the fortune shot is much harder to achieve because of the long exposure the SS-shot is very easy and just average. The rest is a matter of taste but I like the fortune shot much more.

IMHO the wedding photographer's shot is far superior to the ss shot, but the ss shot is worth more than 35 cents. I'd guess it was a commercial shoot outtake but this does show how micro has devalued what we do - volume has to make up for a reasonable license fee.

My best sellers on micro and even on some other sites are often the more mundane shots. But there is still a market for better work. I realized how much shooting stock has affected my perception of what's a "seller" when a shot I love but just thought of as something artsy and more taken for the love of photography than as something I intended to license as stock was licensed by Smithsonian magazine. Those with a good budget and a knowledge of photography know what they're getting and looking at sites like  Image Brief and Stocksy shows that there are still buyers out there who want something more original. Sometimes people shop at WalMart and sometimes they shop at Neiman-Marcus. If the quality is worth the difference to the buyer, then they are getting what they pay for. 

excuse me, but ...unless something has changed since then.. .

here is something that has been bothering me.
u know, some keep repeating that outtake bit. but it depends too.
if the shoot is  "for-hire", the client owns all the images, not the photographer. so out-takes from food shots, aerial shots,etc... may well be not the property of the photographer(s) to licensed.

It definitely depends on the contract. Personally, I don't sign "for hire" contracts. I make it clear when working on an assignment what rights I retain and what rights the buyer owns. Usually, the client will get exclusive rights to all photos they choose and similars for a certain period of time, if it's a subject I think will be worthwhile for stock.
 
I can't imagine someone shooting an aerial photo on spec for the micros, the costs would just be too high I'd think, but it could be someone shooting for pleasure and trying to make a few bucks. Don't know anything about the photographer so it was just an assumption and when you assume...

Anyway, I get your point, but I don't need a lesson in contracts. I work as a freelance writer and photographer for a living and spent 15 years as an attorney in NYC, so please don't assume I'm ignorant of what a "for hire" contract is. I also worked as a staff writer and reporter for a newspaper right out of college and regretfully I know they own the copyright to that work.

Anyway, I get your point, but I don't need a lesson in contracts. I work as a freelance writer and photographer for a living and spent 15 years as an attorney in NYC, so please don't assume I'm ignorant of what a "for hire" contract is. I also worked as a staff writer and reporter for a newspaper right out of college and regretfully I know they own the copyright to that work.

my posting had nothing to do with assumption, nor directed at you. I would have assumed you had photography under the belt with an attorneyship in NYC (dealing with for-hire and intellectual property), rather than an ignoramus in the said issue

it was made in general as most discussion and comments are here on the forum.
of which to solicit insightful general responses such as the one volunteered by OP jrwasserman .