I average $78 monthly for the year. my best month was $290 but it was 2 years ago.

and be aware the $60,000 is Australian dollars, which I read was $45,000 US.

you said: "Why do you think that isn't working for you?"

backgrounds in the urban scene tend to be solid white walls which will appear grey in the shade, or brick walls, or pitch black if you film in a garage, etc, and some of the photos look amazing and some don't.

black backgrounds have problems with people who have black hair. brick walls sometimes look good, but sometimes it is too close to the color of a person's skin. grey backgrounds and white backgrounds might cause exposure problems in bright light.

if anyone has found an ideal background that you can readily find outdoors I would like to know what your opinion is. I prefer black other than the conflict with hair color.

you said: "Surely you don't mind?"

no I don't mind.

my belief is that the files are being lost when you submit them for review.

I have reduced the number of files I submit per batch and temporarily delayed submissions presuming that after a few days the  problem will go away.

you said: "because I, also, would prefer not to be sued"

why would you be sued? you can legally sell almost any photo that you take. you would not be liable if the buyer uses the photo in an infringing way, and neither would the agency that facilitates the sale. there is a near zero percent chance that you will be sued for selling stock photography.

you said: "The point of declaring a file as 'editorial only' is so that the buyer needn't waste their time considering that image if they want to use an image commercially."

only the buyer can determine what the use is. the seller cannot.

second, there are non-commercial uses that are not editorial only. the licensing system created by many stock agencies is confusing, and doesn't even apply to every country's laws worldwide.

when I shoot something like pedestrians, the ocean waves, traffic, etc. I will film a set of short videos (7 sec), some 2 minute videos that I can accelerate the speed, and I might do a time lapse. I stopped doing the time lapse because they are less likely to sell and consume too much time.

a lot of time lapse videos that I filmed were never uploaded because something happened that ruined the shot.

I did a lot of hyperlapse videos where I mounted the camera on the car, with the tripod mounted or a gopro, and drove around for an hour or two. but I have more sales of videos at normal speed.

the video ultimately has to convey a concept. a hyperlapse of traffic conveys a busy urban lifestyle.

however like I said in a another post, all of the techs that have come around (drones, 3d, 360, action cameras, tilt shift, time lapse, etc) have not displaced normal photography and video. regular time is still king.

back in the 1990's, a video cost about $250 or more. photos cost $100.

the prices dropped, and they will continue to do so. now you can get videos for $5 and photos for 50 cents or less.

every time a new photo or video is uploaded, leading to an increase in supply, the end result will be a decrease in pricing unless there is a matching increase in demand.

prices will fluctuate upwards if a company drops SD/NTSC, HD, etc, but that is only going to happen once per company, it could be in the distant future. if a company suddenly decides to dorp all of its HD content, the overall price in the market for videos will go up. but a company can only do this once.

it is like yuri says. if you don't like falling prices, you shouldn't be in the business (his words not mine).

mindstorm,

I think my best selling timelapse videos were hyperlapse videos of traffic.

I did time lapse videos every day for many weeks. my apartment had a view of the sunrise out one window, and a view of the sunset out the other window.

I ended up with large numbers of time lapse videos of sunrise and sunset.

one thing that is important is that the focus may be automatic even if your camera is set to manual. many videos were ruined because the focus would change on the distant sun.

the other issue is that I didn't think most of the time lapse videos were interesting, although some were really cool. but slight defects like a few frames out of focus as the clouds changed over the sun ruined the best video.

I did time lapses by the sea and the tripod moves frequently because of the wind.

in the country I lived in the past 10 years, people will run up the the camera and wave during a time lapse, even if I positioned the camera to make it as difficult as possible for them to do so. but those frames could be edited out.

my best time lapse was interesting in that it was also an amazing shot even if you just look at 1 frame. but they did not sell that often.

I had some initial sales and repeats but I don't think they sell much anymore.

timelapse takes up too much time and the sales do not justify the amount of time spent on them. I probably had 20 or so time lapse videos that were for sale and probably had less than 20 sales overall since 2010 or so.

I am seeing some leveling off with some 4k videos I filmed 4 years ago. I am not sure if it is temporary or not. during the 4 year period, sales were consistent monthly, until a few months ago. this is the oldest material that I am tracking. all of my other sales are steady.

as a general rule, I calculate that I lose 10% of my business every year if I am not actively filming.

does anyone else have any comments for the lifespan of a photo or video?