Stock Photo Submissions

B
Posted By
BranderChatfield
Aug 10, 2004
Views
911
Replies
32
Status
Closed
Any one have suggestions/recommendations/locations where I would be able to sell or make a profit of my photographs? How does one submit photos to such stock photo sites? I have photos of tons of varieties. Also would be great to be able to have the ability to shoot specific shots as requested by a client… Any and all info will be greatly appreciated much.

Thanks!

–Kevin

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

NK
Neil_Keller
Aug 14, 2004
Brander,

Contact reputable stock houses for their submissions guidelines/requirements and how much they pay.

Neil
RS
Richard_Sohanchyk
Aug 14, 2004
istockphotos.com will sell your images for you. They sell the images for a $1 or so. I don’t know what your cut would be. My understanding of the big stock houses – and I may very well be passing on old info – is that they pay you a flat fee for your images and that’s that. They rake in the money but you don’t get royalties or anything like that. Neil’s advice is best. I would also take the additional step of finding an agent who specializes in photographers or at least having a sitdown with an attorney to vet your contract. Don’t let you ego get in the way by cutting corners. Intellectual rights is a huge issue in the digital age.
AK
ashley_karyl
Aug 14, 2004
Personally I’d run a mile from an agency like istockphotos.com or any group that tries to pay a low one time fee in exchange for your images. At the very least aim for a big non exclusive agency like Alamy and then if you find you want to get more involved you could try with agencies like Zeffa or Corbis at a later date.

The submission guidelines will vary substantially from one agency to another and you will have to see what each agency requires. In some cases they insist on 100MB scans with very specific technical characteristics while others just seem to accept anything you throw at them. It has to be said that the stock photo market is changing very quickly and many small agencies which may have been viable 3 or 4 years ago are a total waste of time now. By the same token the large agencies have never been in a stronger market position allowing many of them to create contracts which are extremely biased in their favour so you really need to read the fine print…
RS
Richard_Sohanchyk
Aug 14, 2004
istockphotos isn’t bad for low end stuff. I use a lot of images for websites or people too cheap to purchase good images.
AK
ashley_karyl
Aug 14, 2004
I am certain that istockphotos appears OK from certain buyers point of view but when images are sold for a $1 each its a slap in the face to photographers and I believe Kevin was interested in ways that he could make money.
RL
Ronald_Lanham
Aug 14, 2004
Many of the individual images on istockphoto have been sold thousands of times — so it would seem it would have more to do with the percentage they take (versus a one time buy from a site) if money was the main concern.
AK
ashley_karyl
Aug 14, 2004
I can’t imagine any serious photographers rushing towards a deal like that. In this case I think its mainly a question of photographers not understanding their costs or the value of their work. The return from even huge numbers of sales is going to be pretty pathetic because istock keep 80% and give the photographer just 20%.

Here is a quote from their web site:

Can I Make Money at iStock as an Artist?

The intention of the 20% royalty returned to the member who uploaded the file, is to partially cover the cost of the member’s time and to cover their expenses, such as film, internet connection, scanner, software, etc. As a photographer, you may not get rich from iStockphoto.com, but you will make some money. For example, let’s say you were the member who uploaded the most popular photograph on iStockphoto. If your photograph had been downloaded 4000 times, you would have $400.00 in your iStock cash account. If you had the top 5 downloaded images, this amount would increase exponentially. The money in your iStock account is yours and can be used to purchase download credits, or you can request a cheque be sent from iStockphoto once your account reaches $100 or more. iStockphoto will pay by cheque to the name and address listed on the account. iStockphoto will also make a payment to a PayPal account.
RL
Ronald_Lanham
Aug 14, 2004
ashley

Then you may think the iTunes Music store is not a good thing for musicians… ?

Even if they are making little from it… it does provide visibility.

I see both as good and bad… depending on expectations and fulfillment.

After all — considerably more money is made selling to the masses than is made creating one-of-a-kind objects.

It depends on Brander’s and other’s expectations. Income, fame,…?

Granted hundreds of dollars per image isn’t a lot, but if he has thousands of images…
Z
Zeb
Aug 14, 2004
Doesn’t iStockphoto pay 6cents a download?
AK
ashley_karyl
Aug 14, 2004
There is a fundamental difference between iTunes and istockphoto. The songs downloaded from iTunes are for personal listening only whereas the images sold via istockphoto may be used for any form of advertising that the buyer wishes. Try buying a song by Madonna for $1 via iTunes and using it for a Pepsi advert and you’d get a very nasty shock.

I think you’d be shocked at how much more money you would make with the same thousands of images placed with a serious agency or even marketing them yourself for normal prices with licensed usage. Concepts like istockphoto are bad for the whole photographic industry in my opinion and grossly undermine the value of our work.
AW
Allen_Wicks
Aug 15, 2004
I more than fully agree with Ashley:

"Concepts like istockphoto are bad for the whole photographic industry in my opinion and grossly undermine the value of our work."
RL
Ronald_Lanham
Aug 15, 2004
As I mentioned before… it would depend upon the percentage taken by the site.

Then it would simply be up to the individual as to whether she/he thought it was adequate. For a beginner or hobbyist it may be — whereas for a pro it may not be.

As a designer I’ve used istockphoto and am glad they exist, but from a photographer’s perspective I personally would not sell to them.
NK
Neil_Keller
Aug 15, 2004
Be aware that the top agencies probably have performance expectations relating to quality of the images, and the quantity and frequency of submissions that you need to provide to be included in their roster. On the other hand, they do pay better.

Neil
AK
ashley_karyl
Aug 15, 2004
The top agencies like Getty or Corbis definitely have performance expectations relating to submissions and working with them means never letting much time go by without having to produce something fresh of very high quality. They offer the best potential for sales revenue but they are also the most demanding in every sense, so this is only a step for the seriously committed stock photographer to consider.

As a first step I would suggest dealing with a large non exclusive agency like Alamy where you have the chance to dip your toe in the water without any other limitations on where you can place the material or obligations to produce new material if you don’t want to. Perhaps the main thing that Kevin should be aware of is that stock photography is neither an easy or fast route to riches no matter which road you choose to take.
L
Larryr544
Aug 15, 2004
istockphotos has a placeholder.
RS
Richard_Sohanchyk
Aug 15, 2004
For a beginner or hobbyist it may be — whereas for a pro it may not
be.

Exactly. As I mentioned earlier, this is an extremely low-end site with low-end photos. But I have clients who balk at paying $500 for one photograph or even $299 for a royalty free CD of images. They don’t have a problem with paying me $5 per image for a handful of images I pull off istockphoto for $1 a photo. I certainly can’t complain about the profit margin. 500% markup is nothing to complain about. You get what you pay for. Some people thing Publisher or Word is "good enough" (pardon me while I gag) for print jobs. I’ve printed some horrible crap because there was no need to "waste money paying you to design something I can design just as well myself" (excuse me while I puke again). If I were a pro photographer, I would seek an agent to rep me to the big boys. Realistically, I wouldn’t have a problem putting my vacation photos of Cape Cod on istockphoto. If I was lucky enough to have people download my images, it would be a gas and some pocket change. No more, no less.
H
Hexebah
Aug 17, 2004
Hmmnnn… Just out of curiosity, would anyone be interested in purchasing/using their own, on-line, stand-alone stock library? If so what would you consider to paying for this type of product.

I’m not thinking bells and whistles, just standard form and function.
1. Viewers can search/browse database of images and place orders.
2. Admin can add/modify stock images/data.

Chip
AW
Allen_Wicks
Aug 17, 2004
That’s what Extensis Portfolio, Canto Cumulus and iView Media Pro all provide, among other things, for US$100-2000 depending on server licensing. None of them are what I would call wonderful. Even PS’s Web Photo Gallery gets in the act (poorly), as do various GoLive and Dreamweaver templates.

IMO a solid, clean implementation would have a market in spite of all the competition, but no Beta software need show up.
H
Hexebah
Aug 17, 2004
Thanks for the response Allen.

The reason I ask is that I have nearly finished coding a web-based system such as this for my photographer wife. I’ve been approached to produce a plug/play version for existing and new photographer websites but I am at a loss as to what to charge. I think I will do some R&D into what is on offer and go from there. Thanks again.

Chip
A
acidic
Aug 23, 2004
istockphoto.com is a joke. They sell photos from $1-$3, and they give you a 20% cut per sale ($0.10-$0.30). All of their photos are sold as royalty free, which means that the client pays a one-time fee for a photo, and they get to use it forever, however. It sounds great if you’re a buyer, and you don’t mind getting something that may not be unique. But as a photographer with the intent of making money, well, that’s another story.

Photographer gets $0.10-$0.30 per sale. Let’s assume that photographers get $0.30 per sale for the rest of this post. If you look at istockphoto’s top sellers, they can sell a single photo maybe a few hundred times over the course of a year. Maybe even a thousand times.

The photographer’s takes home $300 for every thousand sales. Okay, $300 per photo per year doesn’t sound too bad for photos you have sitting dormant in your hard drive. But these photos are rare. Take a look at those top selling photographs again–they are usually of the "business lifestyle" variety, which are very marketable in the stock marketplace. They are even more marketable with model releases (which are a required part of submitting to istockphoto). Some of the contributors go through much time and trouble to produce those shots, involving multiple models, warddrobes, lighting, props, and locations. Is that really worth $0.30 a sale? or $300 a year? Keep in mind that most of these photos are lucky to sell 100 times in a year (or $30 for the photographer). Really not worth the trouble, in my opinion.

What these istock photographers don’t realize is that they can make much more money going through a more traditional agency, such as agefotostock, alamy, mira, workbookstock, masterfile, luckypix, zefa… Lifestyle photography is in high demand, and these same photos that make $30 for the photographer can probably 5-10 times that amount at a ‘real’ agency. Their producing professional quality work involving professional level production and selling their photos for slave wages. Kind of like outsourcing IT jobs to India, but much, much sadder in the istockphoto case.

Now, I think istockphoto does have a niche in this marketplace. It’s great for those photographers with a point and shoot camera who want to try and sell cute photos of their kids and pets, and it’s great for those customers who don’t have a budget for photography (non-profit newsletters, student projects, etc). But professional quality work should not be sold for less than the price of lunch.

One last note…if you submit to istockphoto, you have no control over how the buyer uses that image of yours. It can be used totally out of context, and you won’t be able to do a thing. Imagine a photo of your spouse being used for an anti-prostitution campaign…
B
bonniej
Aug 23, 2004
Hi all…

I am a contibuting photographer at iStockPhoto (uploaded my first image June 1) and IStockPro (which is more like the standard stock agency).

I make $$ on everydownload of every image. If the same image gets downloaded 10 times.. I get paid 10 times. The more an image sells…(an image get to be a top seller) the bigger percentage I get.

I am the copyright holder.. and will remain so!! iStock does not take that away.

The downloader is not purchasing the images.. they are only leasing them… there are rules when you download.. read the contract.

This week one of my images made "Image of the Week". It is receiving grand reviews.

I do have some control over how my images are used… read the download contract & you will see… you can not use the image however you want.. there are restrictions!!!

Also if the image is going to be used on a large run… then the downloader must pay additional fees.. also in the download contract.

And you cannot use the image in templates or on anything for resale… again in the download contract.

<http://www.istockphoto.com/license.php>

Basically I am trying to get back into photography after having been away from it for so long. Before submitting to a "rstandard" stock agency I wanted to "test the waters"

Yeah.. I would love to make lots of money in photography… I am starting slow, making sure I have the best quality I can offer… and will move up as I feel comfortable.
AW
Allen_Wicks
Aug 23, 2004
IMO each time you sell an image for 20 US cents (not "$$") you dilute the value of your work, and to some extent the value of everyone else’s work as well. Yes you technically keep the copyright but you have given up most of the potentially remunerative rights associated with the copyright.
RL
Ronald_Lanham
Aug 24, 2004
Bonnie… very Intense. Very nice detail.
B
bonniej
Aug 24, 2004
Thank you Ronald.
T
timdavis
Aug 24, 2004
Bonniej–do you work for istockphoto? There seem to be a lot of posts throughout various forums casting a very positive look at istockphoto right now, even though a photographer cannot make a profit working for a percentage of $.50 or $1.00 per sale. But, I guess you’re driving a lot of people to your site, which seems to be your point.
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
Aug 24, 2004
Tim:

The aspersions that you are casting at Bonnie are unwarranted, unfair and untrue.

If you spent more time helping in these Forums, you would realise how generous Bonnie is with the time that she gives to help others.

You should also know that Bonnie posted here as the result of a private e-mail exchange with me (concerning stock agencies in general) in which I drew her attention to the existence of this thread.
L
linda
Aug 24, 2004
I agree with Ann about Bonnie and her character. I have worked with Bonnie and know her personally. I totally trust her practices and motives… You will never meet a nicer and more generous person.

However, I am beginning to understand some of the concerns that photographers might have about agencies such as iStockPhoto.

[Edited by LRK]
B
bonniej
Aug 24, 2004
Tim–

No I do not work for IStockPhoto. As I said in my previous post I am a contibuting photographer there.

I do not feel that my post was out of line. It is in direct response to the posts before it. I posted to the liscense agreement so that those who had questions could review it. And so that those who seemed to be guessing at what they thought it said could read what it really says. I felt that this was a better choice then copying & pasting the entire length of text in my post.

My point was not to drive people anywhere… only to help clarify things that were previously posted.

I have been contributing positively to the Adobe forums for years now… my only goal is to help where I can & gain knowledge from those who have more experience.

In the future.. please do not make assumptions about me.
LT
Laurentiu_Todie
Aug 24, 2004
I think Tim meant that Bonnie draws visitors to her site as a consequence of her contributions to istockphoto.

(and YES, Bonnie’s good people : )
RL
Ronald_Lanham
Aug 24, 2004
I commend Bonnie for not giving a link to istockphoto regarding the photo of hers she referred to… I had to search it out.

And her post was completely inline with the thread.
A
acidic
Aug 24, 2004
There are some intense discussions re: istockphoto here: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STOCKPHOTO/>

and here:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlamyContributors/>

Quite interesting reading. Basically, many posts state that istockphoto contributors are uneducated about the stock business, industry standard pricing, and how low fees hurt photographers as a whole.

I agree with those discussions to some extent. And if an informed photographer wants to contribute there, great–that’s his or her choice if they want to be exploited. In the case of ‘snapshot’ photographers submitting their vacation pics, photos of their cat, etc. to istockphoto, well, those images are probably only worth a dollar or two (and the ridiculously low commission).
B
bonniej
Aug 25, 2004
Linda, Ann, Todie (who know me well)…
Thank you

Ronald..
Yes I thought a direct link to my image would be inappropriate & irrelevent.

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections