Brad Bireley
Well-known
Bike Tourist said:
Dick,
Which penny stock agency are you with?
Brad
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Tuolumne said:
Silly me. I thought it was based on fair value for work done. Skill, investment in equipment, time, expertise and problem solving.
But that was just my take on it. *shrug*
Pinphot
Established
greyhoundman said:
And what is the commercial value to the end users of this ladies 600 downloads a day? A great deal more than the 20% she is getting from any $1, $5 or even $50 download fees she is earning, and for that matter, well above the fees charged to the end user. It's a numbers game that only the corporations can win. What is she gonna do when the whole world is saturated with her product?
Some posters have mentioned the detrimental effect that globalisation and offshoring is having in all areas of commercial life. This poor sap is allowing her work to be essentially offshored and then shipped straight back to her. She might be making money, but she's nothing more than a sweatshop worker, albeit a very efficient one.
I won't even lend legitimacy by indulging further the pernicious nonsense in this link by posting a more detailed response.
Mark
Pinphot
Established
Tuolumne said:
As Sion Touhig asks in his article on The Register: "You won't see any mobile phone images from Darfur any time soon"
Additionally "True 'citizen journalists' are people like Iraqi news journalists working where western photographers dare not go, to document the destruction of their homeland. Despite putting themselves and their families in peril 24 hours a day, most if not all of them earn a pittance and many relinquish their copyright on images and stories which make the front pages of the worlds newspapers. Just this year alone, 32 have died.
Baghdad has a mobile phone network, but mobile phone image gathering is virtually unknown (unless it's execution footage), as it would be tantamount to a death sentence for most residents. Instead, another form of journalism keeps us passively 'informed' from only one perspective - embedding."
Yes, there is a plethora of imagery, but one has either got to know where to go to or wade through so much junk to find it, that it may as well not exist.
Mark
Pinphot
Established
Aha, a scalp
Aha, a scalp
Aha, a scalp!
Aha, a scalp
greyhoundman said:
Aha, a scalp!
Last edited:
Tuolumne
Veteran
rogue_designer said:
Rogue,
You were right, but the march of technology has changed the value of skill, investment, expertise and problem solving. How do I know this? It's simple - if it weren't so, then a stock photo would still be selling for $250. Since it's not, and since I don't think the values of editors have changed much, it must be that those formerly highly valued skills can be provided in a different and cheaper way.
I see it in my own photography. There are things I can do now with the click of a button that I could never do in a chemical dark room. Sometimes I had no idea how those things were done; sometimes I knew how to do them but didn't have the skill to do them well. So, yes, those skills can be embodied in the expertise of a button of a computer program now.
I look around the Web and see how many astonishingly good photos there are. I won't say great. But they are damn good. It is those photographs that are finding their way onto the penny stock sites. Anyone who can do better should do better by selling their photographs in a different way. There are plenty of sites like this wher5e photographers can demand and get a premium for stock photos. They offer something different and diffrentiated. If you don't you're just going to get a quarter for your trouble.
/T
Pinphot
Established
greyhoundman said:You suffer from delusion of grandeur.
Good to see you back!
doitashimash1te
Well-known
Some Martin Parr quotes:
“All the boundaries are collapsing. One of the things that’s interesting about flickr, is that it’s probably emerged as the most intelligent photo-sharing site - it’s become the brand leader. And what will happen with flickr is that within five years it will start licensing pictures. In other words, they’ll be part of the Getty Corbis machinery…the agencies are concerned about this. It’s something we discuss at Magnum…”
“…within five years flickr will emerge as one of the major sources for licensing imagery…”
“…the other point about flickr, is I can’t tell you how bad the most of the pictures are. I mean, we see this in the site up there (at Musee de L’Elysee) the noise of this contemporary photography is relentless and ultimately, nullifyingly boring.”
“…we have this amazing interest, resurgence in photography, a renaissance, but boy do we have to wade through a lot of rubbish in order to get to anything half-decent.”
“…the best business model is to have fantastic pictures, that have a unique vision and say something different. And you get away from the turgid quantities of cliches and propaganda which we see not only surrounding our lives, but we also see in the exhibition here.”
“…I’m totally in favor of flickr. I haven’t spent enough time trawling through flickr to find the new stars who may be emerging on flickr itself…”
“… but the last thing I’m going to do - is looking at flickr for my stars of the future.”
“I come back to this individual voice in homogenized times. Connecting with a subject matter, doing it with passion, resolving a set of pictures, coming out with a personal statement - there’s always going to be room for that, because we still, whatever the process, whatever the method, we still need stories that touch us as human beings.”
The complete interview: http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=189
“All the boundaries are collapsing. One of the things that’s interesting about flickr, is that it’s probably emerged as the most intelligent photo-sharing site - it’s become the brand leader. And what will happen with flickr is that within five years it will start licensing pictures. In other words, they’ll be part of the Getty Corbis machinery…the agencies are concerned about this. It’s something we discuss at Magnum…”
“…within five years flickr will emerge as one of the major sources for licensing imagery…”
“…the other point about flickr, is I can’t tell you how bad the most of the pictures are. I mean, we see this in the site up there (at Musee de L’Elysee) the noise of this contemporary photography is relentless and ultimately, nullifyingly boring.”
“…we have this amazing interest, resurgence in photography, a renaissance, but boy do we have to wade through a lot of rubbish in order to get to anything half-decent.”
“…the best business model is to have fantastic pictures, that have a unique vision and say something different. And you get away from the turgid quantities of cliches and propaganda which we see not only surrounding our lives, but we also see in the exhibition here.”
“…I’m totally in favor of flickr. I haven’t spent enough time trawling through flickr to find the new stars who may be emerging on flickr itself…”
“… but the last thing I’m going to do - is looking at flickr for my stars of the future.”
“I come back to this individual voice in homogenized times. Connecting with a subject matter, doing it with passion, resolving a set of pictures, coming out with a personal statement - there’s always going to be room for that, because we still, whatever the process, whatever the method, we still need stories that touch us as human beings.”
The complete interview: http://2point8.whileseated.org/?p=189
Tuolumne
Veteran
Pinphot said:
I don't see what any of this has to do with the commoditization of stock photography. The situation in Iraq would prevail regardless of whether everyone shot with a pinhole camera or a digital camera phone. You would have to show that the state of publications that use stock photographs has precipitously declined since the institution of penny stock sites. Has it? Doesn't seem so to me, but I could be wrong.
/T
Pinphot
Established
Tuolumne said:
Yes, but you still ignore the fundamental issue which is the commercial value to the end user, in either selling newspapers or product. It's not as if the global corporation needs charitable status, just look at the rise in the global stock markets over the last couple of years. The rich get richer....blah blah. The fact is, in this race to the bottom, we all suffer, democracy suffers as corporations and governments feel that they can act carte blanche away from independent scrutiny and the quality of the media and imagery suffers as we are dumbed down by a media who's imperatives are controlled by the bean counters and technocrats to whom culture is nothing more than a commodity. Never mind the quality, feel the width.
Mark
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
If I were to program a clustered, multi-tiered service-oriented webapp like Snapvillage (which I easily could, with a team of experienced developers) I would give the photographers 80% of the stock revenue.
A 20% cut would, beyond a certain scale, cover expenses, including salaries.
A 70% take, however, is cold-blooded theft. I suggest you carefully read the contracts (PDF files online) before locking into this particular company. You might not be able to change stock providers at a later date, which should be a possibility for you at any time. Somebody please confirm those terms of the contracts.
It has already been mentioned before that if you just wish to showcase your art, then do so without supporting these con-artists. A friend of mine, who displays some absolutely brilliant work on Flickr, is frequently contacted by nickel-and-dime companies from here and abroad, trying to license his best work for pennies. He consistently says NO (after researching an figuring out just how much money they DO have to spend on marketing).
In all likelihood Flickr will hack out a quick and dirty response to this business threat and offer their members stock-selling functionality as well. Then they will improve the software later while ironing out the bugs.
In order to keep their members (and keep them happy), Flickr will have to initially offer them more % than Snapvillage. I am trying to remain distrustful and patient and gain an understanding of the entire business model. You should too. This isn't an artistic competition anymore.
Peace
A 20% cut would, beyond a certain scale, cover expenses, including salaries.
A 70% take, however, is cold-blooded theft. I suggest you carefully read the contracts (PDF files online) before locking into this particular company. You might not be able to change stock providers at a later date, which should be a possibility for you at any time. Somebody please confirm those terms of the contracts.
It has already been mentioned before that if you just wish to showcase your art, then do so without supporting these con-artists. A friend of mine, who displays some absolutely brilliant work on Flickr, is frequently contacted by nickel-and-dime companies from here and abroad, trying to license his best work for pennies. He consistently says NO (after researching an figuring out just how much money they DO have to spend on marketing).
In all likelihood Flickr will hack out a quick and dirty response to this business threat and offer their members stock-selling functionality as well. Then they will improve the software later while ironing out the bugs.
In order to keep their members (and keep them happy), Flickr will have to initially offer them more % than Snapvillage. I am trying to remain distrustful and patient and gain an understanding of the entire business model. You should too. This isn't an artistic competition anymore.
Peace
Tuolumne
Veteran
Tuolumne
Veteran
Culture is nothing more than a commodity, as far as price goes. Just ask Shakespeare who had to actually entertain all of those groundlings. If he hadn't done that we'd have no Shakespeare to perform today. Then there is the price of an Ansel Adams or of a Picasso. Those are commodities, too, i.e. their price is set by the market. If you don't like the price, don't buy or sell. That is always anyone's perquisite.
/T
If he hadn't done that we'd have no Shakespeare to perform today. Then there is the price of an Ansel Adams or of a Picasso. Those are commodities, too, i.e. their price is set by the market. If you don't like the price, don't buy or sell. That is always anyone's perquisite./T
Pinphot
Established
Tuolumne said:
I think that you misunderstand my, (and Sions), point. Yes, Iraq has happened, but are you prepared to risk getting shipped home in a box for a pittance, or run the risk of being wiped out in some act of sectarian score settling if you don't have the luxury of being able to leave? The issue is around the market forces that are impacting on the whole industry and helping to destroy the culture in which independent views are represented.
No, microstock is not the sole reason for this decline in pluralism, but is a pretty big nail in it's coffin.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Kevin said:
A 70% take sounds like a pimp rather than an agent...
Pinphot
Established
Tuolumne said:
Unfortunately, the price is being distorted downwards by the amateur/hobbyist who's only real payment is the warm glow that comes from knowing that somewhere their work is being seen, (often uncredited), and maybe a bit of pin money to help them indulge their hobby. Getty, Corbis etc, know this and the bean counters running these corporations exploit this mercilessly.
And what of us lesser mortals, who really just want to earn an honest crust.
I could knock you out a perfectly passable 'Ansel Adams' in two days from now, (I'd need the travelling time from the UK), but it wouldn't be an Ansel Adams. You'd know that, I'd know that and so would the collector we tried to pass it off to. If the truly great became the only people allowed to make a crust from the value of their intellectual property then overpopulation and global warming would be solved overnight, the rest of us would have simply starved, and Picasso would have to pay a ludicrous amount to get a shirt dry cleaned.
Last edited:
Pinphot
Established
shutterflower said:
Is he in need of a desciple?
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Pinphot said:
:bang: The truth hurts.
Pinphot
Established
shutterflower said:
Sorry, I was being glib. Unfortunately, like most others, I just want to earn a living. Yes, I run a business, but at the end of the day me and many of my my colleagues are photographers first and business-people second. Like you, we made choices, in my case i studied photography rather than business. I won't question the right of business to exist, I only wish that those busineses representing monopoly capitalism would have the grace to afford my community, (and many other communities, both social and commercial), the same compliment.
ebolton
Number 7614
I work in manufacturing for a small USA company that is doing quite well making highly ruggedized computers for dangerous environments.
We are thriving because our management and sales team knows the market segment intimately, and our operations team is dedicated to continuous improvement from the customers point of view. We do things others don't know how to do, and we monitor every expense while doing it.
This is globalization and free markets. It is kind of like "economic combat". Nobody is paid for potential anynore, at least long term. It's now pay for performance, and performance is measured relative to everybody else's performance, world-wide.
You need to remain curious enough to learn everything you can, then flexible enough to apply it.
As a photographer, you could shoot for a success in a stock market by really analyzing your costs, cutting them to the minimum, thus increasing your margin at what the maket is willing to pay. Or, you could sell fewer images better than anybody else can make for as much money as your customers will pay.
As somebody earlier said, it is cruel but that is the way things are now and will be for the duration.
Ed
We are thriving because our management and sales team knows the market segment intimately, and our operations team is dedicated to continuous improvement from the customers point of view. We do things others don't know how to do, and we monitor every expense while doing it.
This is globalization and free markets. It is kind of like "economic combat". Nobody is paid for potential anynore, at least long term. It's now pay for performance, and performance is measured relative to everybody else's performance, world-wide.
You need to remain curious enough to learn everything you can, then flexible enough to apply it.
As a photographer, you could shoot for a success in a stock market by really analyzing your costs, cutting them to the minimum, thus increasing your margin at what the maket is willing to pay. Or, you could sell fewer images better than anybody else can make for as much money as your customers will pay.
As somebody earlier said, it is cruel but that is the way things are now and will be for the duration.
Ed