Just had an interesting experience with relation to trying to get media credentials as a freelance photographer and I thought I would share.

There is an event at a ski resort the weekend of July 5 relating to extreme mountain biking.  I contacted the resort to get information about shooting the event.  On their website, they have posted the required paperwork and qualifications.  I contacted the person at the resort completed the paperwork and was working on submitting it.

Today (two days later), I got another email from the resort.  They are asking for a release that outlines a TFCD agreement that allows them to use my images on a royalty free basis.  I figure no worries � trade a CD of images for access.  Then I kept reading their release and came upon this clause�

Photographer understands and agrees that the Images may be displayed on the internet websites for XXXXX and its affiliated entities.  Photographer realizes, acknowledges and agrees that visitors to the XXXXX and it�s affiliated entities� websites may be able to download the Images and that they may use them for their own purposes or amusement and that XXXXX and it�s affiliates entities cannot and will not control and will not be responsible or liable for such downloading and reuse by any third party.

So in exchange for access, they want me to allow anyone to download and use my images in any fashion they want from their web site � even though I am trying to sell them through an agent?  I wrote back and indicated if they removed the clause I wouldn�t have a problem, but I was unwilling to sign the document as is.

What would you have done?

I just signed up and started uploading.  I have to be honest - this is one of the BEST categorizing and keyword suggestion systems I have EVER seen.  I'm impressed.

Greg, these are very good questions and in my opinion, they are VERY valid.  I went through a period over the last year where I had to examine what I was doing and why.

I don't know how long you've been doing this, or what your experience is over time so I'm not sure how to  analyze questions.  I will say the following....

The things that helped me go forward included analyzing what experienced photographers do and looking back at my portfolio.

Looking back at my portfolio is the biggest key.  I started with micros in October 2005.  Those images that I posted then are still selling.  I've also observed the portfolios of those in the micros and macros - and I'm seeing the same thing.  I'm also seeing that over time, the return is there.


Here's my analysis....Think of it as buying a bond.  In the beginning, you spend (as an example) $1,000 on that bond.  Over time, you get a dividend (monthly, quarterly, annual interest).  The more bonds you have, the more money you will make.  Think of every image as a bond.

I think it is often unfair that when people talk about microstock prices they say the share that they get, ie. 30 cents from shutterstock, $1.20 from lucky oliver, but when they talk about alamy, they say what alamy got.  After alamy share, and their partners share (if it was sold by another agency), the accounting fee and so on, often the REAL amount is less than 50% of the amount quoted.

Not to mention the minimum payout is $250 and at $65/image, with the frequency of sales, payouts at the smaller micros come just as often 

Forgive me if I'm wrong but my understanding was that Shutterstock interpolates our files up after submission so honestly, the argument about 25 (or 30 cents) for a large file doesn't really hold up.  I thought I read somewhere about that in their submission requirements.

I have a 16.7mp camera and an 8mp camera.  I've found that there are certain sites I HAVE to downsize images in order to get them on.  BigStock is the first one that comes to mind - they don't accept anything over 10mb in size.  Some images make it, others don't.

I only downsize when I need to - ether on an individual basis for places like BigStock or in order to create a better composition or to salvage something that wasn't 100% in focus for the same reason Leaf states.

anything with a beating heart will sell well. 

The NPPA code of ethics outlines that you shouldn't pay the subject of your story.  For example, say you're doing a story on an Afghan woman with green eyes.  The NPPA doesn't want photographers to pay for that story as it may influence the truth or the story.  The practice is that the story must be as truthfull and unbiased as possible.

What I'm pointing out is that a model release isn't valid without consideration.  If you can't ethically pay someone for their picture as a photojournalist, then how can you get an enforceable model release?

I agree with Leaf - take a look at Alamy.  The majority of the images there are "editorial travel" which very well may have pictures of kids playing at the beach.

I have a series there of the "Frozen Dead Guy Days" held in Nederland, Colorado - pictures of kids being carried in caskets as well as hippies playing drums.  I don't normally submit editorial imagery to the micros - reason being is once you sell them as royalty free, you can't sell them as rights managed - I've got a whole list of non-exclusive RM agencies that I upload those images to.  There aren't as many microstock agencies accepting editorial images so currently it isn't worth my while - I'm sure that will change within the next couple of years.

The press pass application backing offered by Shutterstock is the start of that change (most press pass applications require the backing of an organization - very tough when you freelance).

Fun stuff to break up the mundane "over white" type shots 

Scoop (owned by Getty) requires 1 year exclusivity.  Citizen Image requires 3 month.

I personally have no problem with a 2 year exclusivity.  The images will be newsworthy during that time, then they will be sought after in a different market - textbooks, encyclopedias, etc.  Essentially, you're recording history - pretty good stuff when you think about it.  This is also a foot in the door with relation to local press organizations.  Here in Colorado, there is a sanctioning body that will grant you a blanket press pass for street photography (so you can photograph everything from accident scenes to protests, to local fairs and carnivals knowing that if the police confront you, they know you have a reason to be there and you are not causing mischief).  In order to get one, you simply have to prove you work in the industry.  Having backing like this, as a freelancer, makes the proof show (I just need to get my web site updated again).

What disturbs me is certain contributors in the Shutterstock thread seem to think this gets them an instant model release.  Maybe there should be a tutorial somewhere about what is acceptable as "Commercial" imagery and what constitutes "Editorial" imagery.

I posted this in another forum and I think it's also appropriate here...

OK, I know I always have different views on things, and I don't mean to sound negative towards the survey but I'm not sure what information this survey is telling us and I'm not sure how to look at it.

"Most non-microstock photographers required less than $10K in investment for 2006" that's a very scary statistic in that it can appear a bit deceptive at first. I personally have spent over $15,000 in just equipment this year alone and I don't have any significant lighting equipment to speak of. Last year, I spent close to $10,000 on the same. This doesn't include studio space (which I am trying to secure soon), modeling fees, location fees, insurance, vehicle expenses, etc. I mean honestly, an entry level professional camera is $7,000. A decent medium format camera with a digital back goes for about $22,000. An established photographer, shooting for traditional agencies, isn't going to have to make that initial up front required investment.

My read is that non-microstock photographers made the investment in their equipment when they first started and the barriers to entry into the traditional market place are higher. It appears to me, newer photographers gaining entry into the industry are doing it through the micros or through agencies that don't require the traditional 48mb TIFF file for submission. That means more competition at the micro level...not only from new amateurs signing up, but also from pros moving into the market segment. It also means more opportunities for those like myself that want to make the move into this area. Looking down the road, it looks to me that things are going to get extremely tough and its time, now more than ever, to get serious and establish a concrete foothold before the opportunity slips by.

I was also intrigued by the distribution of income based on specialties. We all know business is a hot topic, but again, I think this can be a bit deceptive. Professional photo shoots sanctioned by a corporate customer are naturally going to bring in more money than a photographer that shoots travel imagery on speculation. My feelings are, all things considered, the distribution appears to be pretty regular amongst all categories.

The thing that really impressed me was the income based on licensing model. Royalty Free imagery does in fact appear to be more lucrative. That's a good thing for us!

Lots to think about in the survey. Am looking forward to further evaluation and the June issue.

Maybe if he would follow the rules that everyone else abides by, then he wouldn't be such a target.

What rules are those?  Submitting to an agency and having a reviewer approve or refuse an image?

...or are you trying to beat a dead horse (again).

Funny how nobody ever brings this up and accuses folks like Bobby or Jaimie or Sean or Andres for "not playing by the rules" even though they've worked just as hard as Ron.

Come on guys, lets play nice and show some respect.

You can't upload to them if you play on the micros 

Miz - a very long time ago, I did some work for a magazine on a freelance basis.  The requirements were a margin on the right and a margin on the top - both for copy space.  If they wanted a cropped image, they cropped it.  Was as simple as that.

The latest PACA meeting had designers expressing the same sentiments.  Give me full body shots and uncropped images - we can do the cropping.

Though I do agree with non-stock related stuff...did a wedding a couple of weeks ago.  I went ahead and cropped some images for the bride and groom.  They liked the cropped images better than the uncropped images - and they didn't know enough to know it was the same photograph.

You shoot with a 16mp camera - why not shoot uncropped, then crop to your liking and submit both?