 Lori Carpenter |
Question About a Stock Agency Last summer, I signed a non-exclusive contract with a stock agency. I have about 50 images on their site, and with each submission they usually request 10 to 20 percent of the images. My question is, how long does it take to start making any money from stock photography? I understand that 50 images isn't going to buy a Porsche (or the seat cover). Currently, none of the images have been sold. Is this normal? Is it better to place images in Royalty Free sections or Rights Managed? All of my images are in the Rights Managed section. Any advice or information from any of the seasoned stock photographers is greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Hi Lori- I am co-owner of stock photo agency www.fogstock.com and teach the Stock Photo course here at BP. So my answers are from an agency owner and a photographer. At our agency, my rough estimate is that our shooters who have about 5000 images online make roughly $1500 per month - but it varies, of course, by subjects that each photographer shoots. Lifestyle and business themes far out-sell landscape, nature, and wildlife. So the corporate/lifestyle shooter may make much more per month than $1500, while the travel photographer makes much less. Fifty images are not enough to generate much income in today's market, unless you are shooting something that is incredibly unique and not many similars are on the market. I also added (below) two paragraphs out of one of my lessons from my course: Introduction to Stock Photography, taught here at BP. I hope there is some information that will help answer your RF/RC question. ROYALTY FREE vs. RIGHTS CONTROLLED Today, RC and RF images are defined by many factors, including how difficult the image was to obtain. RC images command two to three times the usage fees as RF and oftentimes more. RC images might be an image that was difficult to get and as an example, lightning across the Grand Canyon is very difficult to obtain. However, an image of the Grand Canyon taken on an average day, with no special situation is a dime-a-dozen and would do better as an RF image. RC images are still licensed by the usage and if the client wants to use it again, beyond the original negotiated terms, they pay again. Clients pay for RF images once and can use them without any additional compensation going to the photographer. RF images account for 80 percent or more of all stock photo sales now. So if you want to tap into that large part of the market, you should place some of your images in RF. My strategy is to place the images that are common within the market into RF. Any image that has a very strong concept, or I have spent considerable time creating in Photoshop, go into RC. If I photographed a tornado while driving across Oklahoma, that goes into RC. If I photograph the storm clouds preceding the tornado, those are very common images and go into RF. How unique and special an image is should be the deciding factor in where you place an image in the market. They are both good sources for income.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Lori Carpenter |
I was hoping you would answer this question! I signed with agefotostock (they don't capitalize it either) ... this was only after looking at a lot of different agencies that I thought would accept my images. I have thought of using Alamy as they have a much higher commission rate, but there's a lot more work with them. You are so right about what they want. I shoot for stock a lot of times and between my children and all of my nieces, nephews and siblings, we can do a lot with model releases. I still enjoy trying to get those pretty images for my enjoyment, but the fact is that most average stock images aren't that contest worthy. I'm going to try the RF a little and see what happens. Thanks again for your reply.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Joe Jarosz |
Hi Charlie, I just wanted to follow up on this question. I know this is a pretty detailed question, but how does someone go about getting accepted to a stock agency? I looked at a few agency Web pages and noticed they ask for a profile, including how many years in photography, number of photo's etc? Does someone who is just getting started, only a few years in taking pictures and not a huge database of pics, etc have a shot at getting into an agency? What do agencies look for on applications to determine if they accept you or not? I know that probably a good idea to take your course (I may for spring) but just wanted to get some initial thoughts. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Joe, The fastest way to get into an agency is to shoot what not to many others are. Now that is broad and vague, but very true. It really depends on what you shoot. I have said this before when answering QnA here as well as mention in my class, that if nature, flowers, landscapes, and wildlife are a photographer's passion, they won't make much money at it. The supply vastly outnumbers the demand. If you are a people and lifetsyle shooter, you have a much bigger chance of getting - and an even better chance if you shoot business and industry. The big agencies already represent fantastic photographers in all areas and the best of the landscape photographers as well. They have no interest in beginners. Do you like to travel? If you went around the country each year and shot current city skylines, I think you could get in with an agency and do well. You would have to go back and re-shoot each city every two years. Are you a people photographer? Shoot minorities and you will do well. What I recommend is that you shoot like mad and spend your surfing time looking at Getty, Corbis, Brand X, Index, Blend Images, and so on until you have a clear impression of what is in style and current. Feel free to contact me should you have more questions. Take care, Charlie
|
|
|
|
||
|
Joe Jarosz |
Thank you very much, So from your view, the types and quality/uniqueness of the photos are as, if not more, important than the number of photos? If I have a number of photos that I believe are something a stock agency would like, but basically don't have a large database of pictures or a long time in the industry, would you recommend submitting or waiting until I shoot a lot more and then submit? In a nutshell, I have a small number of pics I think would be saleable ... is it worth giving it a try with the hopes of getting accepted and then continuing to submit if I do? Thank you very much for all of the insight.
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Joe, Without seeing the pictures, it is hard to advise. At Fogstock, we need a minimum of 200 stand-alone fabulous images that show an ability to shoot at the current trends. If these 200 are unique, that will catch our interest. If it is a shot of a sailboat, a rose, a kid eating an ice cream cone, a sunset, etc., this indicates that this photographer wanders around with a camera looking for pretty pictures. If instead, this photographer's 200 includes a business meeting at a sidewalk cafe, a woman with a headset in front of a computer in an office environment, a senior couple in the studio smiling lovingly at the camera, a medical doctor treating a patient, grapes being crushed at a winery, or a couple on a cruise ship at sunset, this indicates to us a photographer who pays attention to the current agency needs and shoots production. By shooting production, I am referring to a stock photographer who plans, prepares, and produces a stock shoot. This might include using models, proper wardrobe, and props. In answer to your question, uniqueness is essential over quantity, but even more, there should be a clear indication to the agent that you are a good photographer who is planning to produce lots of images. It costs agencies money to scan, retouch, and market your work and most only have interest in high-production photographers with talent. Now, that does not mean you do not have a chance. Rather, carefully review your work and compare to what you see at online agencies. If you think you are there, then go for it!
|
|
|
|
||
|
James R. Beatty |
Regarding your answers (above) suggesting that shooting people or lifestyles is perferred, would you need a legal releash from the people in the photo before it could be sent/used by a stock agency? Thanks Jim Beatty
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Jim Model releases are mandatory for agencies even if it is someones fingers pushing buttons on a cell phone. I know other people involved in the big agencies and we share horror stories regarding those shady few who look for photographs that have been published and that could be anybody. Its happened to me. I have a photo of a businessman on a phone; full face shot and then a close up of the mouth and phone. I live in Oregon and hired a model for the shoot and have a release. Someone from NY claimed it was their mouth and phone, they were a well known actor in NY and claimed they did not give permission for their photo to be published. We got several letters from their lawyer until I produced the release and both photos. Then we never heard again. This extornionist tactic is quite common. People looking for a quick payoff to avoid hassles. I have several friends who have paid thousands because they did not get releases. Another horror story from about 5 years ago. A well known stock photographer who had their own agency and also licensed the same images through Corbis, photographed a couple with their baby. The photographer had been photographing them and decided to get the baby in some shots. The photographer got releases from the couple, but failed to get the babies. The image ended up on Corbis website, was bought, downloaded, and used in several ads. The parents saw it and filed a lawsuit and Corbis paid the couple $1,000,000 to avoid the litigation. I do not remember what happened to the photographer, but the legal isuues continued. So, agencies wont touch a photo, no matter how good, without a release. Its always in your best interest to get them.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Joe Jarosz |
Not that I'm an expert, but I just read this article the other day. Similar situation but this guy was awarded $15.6M.. copy and paste this into your browser http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/01/coffee.model.ap/index.html
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Not to mention word getting around as being the guy who cost a company money because you're at fault for not getting a release. Could be a reputation easy to get and hard to get rid of.
|
|
|
|
||
- Jeff Lovinger Contact Jeff Lovinger Jeff Lovinger's Gallery |
On this subject, I have model releases for my models, but if my wife uses one of my images in a montage, with many other layers of photos, does she need her own release? The models may possibly be recognized in the finished photo. She plans to sell them at galleries and is concerned about legalities. Thanks, Jeff
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Yes, she better have a release. It does not matter how it is used, but rather that it was used.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Jeff Lovinger Contact Jeff Lovinger Jeff Lovinger's Gallery |
Charlie, thanks for your quick reply. So do you mean that even if I have a release, she needs one from the same model for the same photo. Also, is one release good for the whole shoot? Thanks, Jeff
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Jeff I misunderstood your first question. If you have a release from the model, then you are covered. You then can license the image to anyone, including your wife and no further release is required. The release is good for the whole shoot. If you take the same model out next month to shoot again, a new release is required.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Jeff Lovinger Contact Jeff Lovinger Jeff Lovinger's Gallery |
Thanks Charlie, that explains it. I posted a question here, on another post, about insurance for photo equipt. I was wondering if you had any suggestions? Thanks, Jeff
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
If you have much equipment you gotta have it. I recently left State Farm for Tom Pickard agency in LA. You can find their site thru Google.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Jeff Lovinger Contact Jeff Lovinger Jeff Lovinger's Gallery |
I will check into that one. I wonder if that is the same ins. co. that Bryan Peterson mentioned to me on a workshop this fall. Thanks, Jeff
|
|
|
|
||
|
Dorothy Lam |
I've started taking pictures not too long ago and is interested in stock photography. Someone mentioned Shutterstock ($0.25 each download) and I looked around the internet for others like Big Stock Photo ($0.50 each download) and Shutterpoint (which takes 15% commission). Has anyone used any of the above or others that you would recommend to a beginning photographer?
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||