Tough times if you live from photography

[Bille]

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2013/01...-free-commercial-images-photographers-get-12/

 

[bsdunek]

I don't understand why Getty is doing this; I don't see what's in it for them. Must be something below the radar.
In any case, the comments are very appropriate - the photographers are getting screwed!

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Yep. It's a far cry from the days when stock libraries were a guaranteed pension for life.

 

[Damaso]

Over the last 15 years shooting stock has become less and less lucrative. I'm glad I never got involved with that side of things...

 

[waynec]

In the past I had 2 agents selling my stock photos. This was added income to my commercial photo work. When one agent sold their business to one of the huge stock outfits, I pulled all my stuff. I was being offered $0.75 for the use of images that a few years back brought $500-2,000/use. It's not worth my time to even talk to people wanting to use my stuff. I would just let the whole thing rest if it weren't for image theft. If they can't buy it for 75 cents, they steal it.

And there's your new source of income. Suing people who steal your images.

 

[mwoenv]

Using creators'/workers' efforts without compensation? Who's surprised?

 

[paradoxbox]

legal action is not that expensive if you do it yourself. the filing fees are usually under 20$ in total in almost any nation.

 

[KM-25]

The title of this misleading, it should have the word stock in it. And even then, it does not apply to everyone. But I get it, many amatuer photographers like to get together and say how glad they are that they don't do photography for a living and no one who is has as much fun as they do....it happens here a ****load folks, lol!

I saw what Getty was doing about 15 years ago when they started swallowing up smaller agencies. Not only did I not actively seek their representation, I turned them down when they contacted me to join them.....three times. Up until the economic crash, I routinely pulled in over 50K per year off of stock, by 2009, it was all but gone. Now it is back up to a level that it is still worth it.

But best of all, like the rest of my business it is all word of mouth...as in no website, no flicker galleries and no image theft BS. Some of us who are established and are doing well took it all off the web and all underground, off the other photographer's radar and it is working very, *very* well for us.

You want to sell stock in this decade? You have to have stunning imagery in a deeply carved niche and keep it all off of the web, period.

 

[ShinX414]

I saw what Getty was doing about 12 years ago. Not only did I not actively seek their representation, I turned them down when they contacted me to join them.....three times. Up until the economic crash, I routinely pulled in over 50K per year off of stock, by 2009, it was all but gone. Now it is back up to a level that it is still worth it.

But best of all, like the rest of my business it is all word of mouth...as in no website, no flicker galleries and no image theft BS. Some of us who are established and are doing well took it all off the web and all underground, off the other photographer's radar and it is working very, *very* well for us.

You want to sell stock in this decade? You have to have stunning imagery in a deeply carved niche and keep it all off of the web, period.

I kind of understand what you said but that would make it even harder for new comers to get into the market.
But i do agree that one would find enough customers once they have an awesome gallery to display

 

[KM-25]

It is going to get harder for newcomers no matter what you do, it's just the way it is when everyone who has a camera thinks they are a photographer and wants a buck for their photos.

If you are at the top 1% in terms of talent in your desired niche and it is not a niche that is overrun by people, then with some hard work and smart marketing...and I really do mean smart, you might stand a chance.

But if you want to see what happens to people who think that working for free will get you into your dream job or that there just HAS to be an easier way in because all your Flickr fans say you are so gooooood, just read what happens:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350613&page=1

I kind of understand what you said but that would make it even harder for new comers to get into the market.
But i do agree that one would find enough customers once they have an awesome gallery to display

 

[semilog]

Wow. Great insightful thread. Thanks especially to PKR and KM-25...

 

[Avotius]

Digital stock really screwed up things in modern photography.

A few years ago a certain yellow framed magazine that I was doing some stuff with decided to use stock images rather than some very minor costs to get some photos and totally missed out on the end goods. Now that publication uses a lot of AP and stock stuff readily available to everyone and has lost its edge.

 

[KM-25]

This is exactly what I am talking about, no web, just a few key strands of it well placed. There will always be demand for great work from a person who is easy to work with and loves all the aspects of the work. I guess as crappy as it is in a general sense, I like the challenge of it all....

Besides, other than renewable energy tech, I really don't know what the heck else I would do...

Or have a private, password accessed web site; many have gone this route. Nothing on the site can be accessed by the public. Passwords change often. Passwords requests are accessed via US mail on a company letter head and confirmed via a return phone call. No web BS.

The solutions are similar. Private image posting for a specific project works. When the project is finished, the images are removed from the private site. Only the client, me and my assistant have access to the imagery.

KM-25 has figured out the way to do work in the cyber-crime environment we live in.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

it's just the way it is when everyone who has a camera thinks they are a photographer

That's the thing, they are photographers.

The weavers of nineteenth century England made the same mistake when the steam mills came along. "Anyone who stands in front of one of them frames thinks they're a weaver" they scoffed. Guess who made a wage (though not necessarily a living wage) and who starved, though.

And, yes, a few of the traditional weavers survived and even thrived, by finding the niches that the steam mills couldn't or wouldn't fill. As the Romans (didn't) say "nihil novi sub sole"...

 

[Avotius]

...a few of the traditional weavers survived and even thrived, by finding the niches that the steam mills couldn't or wouldn't fill. As the Romans (didn't) say "nihil novi sub sole"...

And that is why I started doing commercial work 99% of the time. It pays the bills and you cant do it with an iphone.

 

[kbg32]

I don't understand why Getty is doing this; I don't see what's in it for them. Must be something below the radar.
In any case, the comments are very appropriate - the photographers are getting screwed!

To Getty, photographers are a commodity. We can be bought and sold, or just treated like dirt. For every Getty photographer that jumps ship, there are 20 waiting to make easy quick money the Getty way. Getty cares as much about the business, as long as they can reap the rewards - $$$$. I wish understood why they do what they do.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Tough times if you live from photography -- and indeed if you live from anything except ownership of the means of distribution (the means of production is worth very little -- just look at Walmart or Amazon) or from the manipulation of finance. Ask my sister in law -- she's a doctor in the USA, or those of my relatives who are 'something in the City'. The latter have a wonderful line in rationalizing the amount they and their chums are paid.

Cheers,

R.

 

[waynec]

Insightful.
These conversations started years ago when rights usage imaging starting selling for a $.01. Now I know that the way to do it is to go underground. Of course word of mouth and your contacts are the most important.

I wonder what would happen if everyone pulled their images offline and out of the hands of stock houses and started working together in a consortium that set prices based on number of copies printed. I wonder if it would work? Overhead is always something editors watch to lower.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Insightful.
These conversations started years ago when rights usage imaging starting selling for a $.01. Now I know that the way to do it is to go underground. Of course word of mouth and your contacts are the most important.

I wonder what would happen if everyone pulled their images offline and out of the hands of stock houses and started working together in a consortium that set prices based on number of copies printed. I wonder if it would work? Overhead is always something editors watch to lower.

Nice idea!

Cheers,

R.

 

[VF101]

I wonder what would happen if everyone pulled their images offline and out of the hands of stock houses and started working together in a consortium that set prices based on number of copies printed. I wonder if it would work? Overhead is always something editors watch to lower.

Hasn't that been the very idea behind Magnum Photos?