The Handcuffs and Temptation of Stock Agencies

Damaso

Damaso

Photojournalist
Local time
10:50 AM
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
2,380
"To date, I have had 27 requests but have only accepted one as a “what if” test. I offered Getty that single image and while it did indeed sell, the royalty margins are the typical low. The Flickr collection is all royalty free and in this particular case, Getty licensed my image for their standard price of $382.50. They keep 80% of it leaving me with $76.50 before the IRS steps in (Canadians can file to get it back) and claims another 30% of that earnings dropping my payout to $53.55. I suppose $53 is better than nothing?"

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/06/04/the-handcuffs-and-temptation-of-stock-agencies/#more-57989
 
Ouch ...That sounds Pitiful.....Dreadful !
Very Sorry to hear Damaso
Hopefully that image was with your M8 , so film, developing, scanning had no $ impact as well
 
If there's any money to be made in photography, it's stock agency. Start a stock agency. :)
 
I had a guy approach me yesterday at a juried art show I was accepted into. All my prints were printed in the darkroom on fiber and I have maybe 2-3 of each. He says he wants to buy my "images". I laughed and told him I only had prints. He said he wanted to get me to scan 10 of the images and sell the "unlimited printing rights" to those images to him. While I could still do hand prints, I would have no say what the photos would be used for. I had to decline on principle for a few reasons: 1. I didn't want someone else printing my stuff digitally and not have my personal control over the quality, materials, interpretation, etc. 2. I wouldn't want to lose control of where that image is used if I don't support the company, advertisement, etc. and 3. I know that when someone tells you that they "want to buy it outright" and not give you percentages or commission of the sale, they're going into it knowing that there's more money to be made...afterall, why would they gamble on something they are likely to lose at? and 4. Mass producing my images is not my style.

Although this is different, the concept is similar. They're taking the art away from the artist and making money off it with doing very little work and not being at all involved in the creation of the work. In this case/thread you showed us, you even lose your own right to re-print the image. But, I guess if you're hard-up, everyone's gotta make a buck. Some would argue that it's "getting you name out" or "lots of people get to enjoy your images", but I can't buy into that. I think it's things like this that take the soul out of photography and turn it into a display/decorative product rather than an art.
 
jordanstarr said:
They're taking the art away from the artist and making money off it with doing very little work and not being at all involved in the creation of the work. In this case/thread you showed us, you even lose your own right to re-print the image. But, I guess if you're hard-up, everyone's gotta make a buck. Some would argue that it's "getting you name out" or "lots of people get to enjoy your images", but I can't buy into that. I think it's things like this that take the soul out of photography and turn it into a display/decorative product rather than an art.
Click to expand...


Starbucks + Barnes & Noble. Need I say more?
 
Industries need more decorative stuff for illustrations than art, that's OK. If all would make art only, there wouldn't be illustrations at all (and other needful things like knives, benches, bread, boots etc.)

It's choice of photographer which side to take. Personally I respect good craftsman more than bad artist, I mean this broader than photography only.
 
helenhill said:
Ouch ...That sounds Pitiful.....Dreadful !
Very Sorry to hear Damaso
Hopefully that image was with your M8 , so film, developing, scanning had no $ impact as well
Click to expand...


Oh this wasn't me, it was from another photographer. I know better than to get into bed with those boys...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom