# selling images to stock company.



## photographyfanatic (Jul 16, 2009)

So I thought I would look into some stock photo companies. Um I only looked at one Shutterstock.com and stopped there because I was horrified. If you submit photos and your photos are purchased, do you know what they pay you? Get ready.... wait for it..... here it comes..... twentyfive cents - a fricken quarter!!!!! Is this typical? Who would sell their stuff for a quarter?  Anyone have a stock site that actually pays money when your stuff is purchased? Thanks


----------



## musicaleCA (Jul 16, 2009)

Yup. Sounds pretty typical of every stock site I've ever looked at. iStock is about the same (or less; they pay you more if your work is downloaded *a lot*).

Personally, it's the scary terms that you agree to that would scare me away. I really am just not up for selling the rights to my photos, in perpetuity, exclusively to them. Then I can't even make better money off the image by say, printing it.


----------



## KmH (Jul 16, 2009)

There is a huge glut of images in the stock houses and that doesn't count the micro stock houses like Shutterstock.

Since Getty Images started buying up every niche stock house in sight the industry has changes radically. 



There are 2 kinds of stock images:

Rights Managed
Royalty Free
If you want to make money in stock (beyond pocket change):
Stick with the rights managed houses like Getty Images or Corbis.
Be prepared to submit (and have accepted) at least 100 images a month.
Be sure and shoot your stock so ther is room for advertisers to add advertising copy.
Make some contacts in the advertising industry because if you're looking at magazines off the rack to see what AD's (Art Directors) are buying, you're already 4 to 6 months behind the trend because that's the lead time for publication. Right now, you should be shooting the Thansgiving to New Years holiday stuff.
Earning a living as a photographer is a a lot more work, and involves an amazing variety of skill sets, than many people realize. 
Here's a link to other micro stock houses and some other info.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 16, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Personally, it's the scary terms that you agree to that would scare me away. I really am just not up for selling the rights to my photos, in perpetuity, exclusively to them. Then I can't even make better money off the image by say, printing it.



You keep the rights on all of the ones I've seen...  Though, you do have the option to sell the rights - but it is only an option.  You're basically selling a license to use the images.


Honestly, I dont think these kinds of images would sell much outside of the stock world (unless you cut out the agency and sold directly to the end user)...  They're usually pretty boring/dry.

I have a few (like, 20) up on a couple micro-stock sites.  A few of them have sold, but it's nothing worth bragging about.  I'm not too worried about someone else being able to use them - I took them specifically for that purpose.  And, (to me) they are pretty boring.  Not the kind of stuff I would hang on the wall...


The only way you can really make money at it is to have high volume.  Tons of pictures on there, with tons of downloads.


----------



## KmH (Jul 16, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Personally, it's the scary terms that you agree to that would scare me away. I really am just not up for selling the rights to my photos, in perpetuity, exclusively to them. Then I can't even make better money off the image by say, printing it.


When you have a bit of time, read a sites terms for photographers that submit images. It's not as bad as you think.

Now, photo contests...stay away from a lot of those.


----------



## musicaleCA (Jul 17, 2009)

Bah. Photo contests are terrible. I read a recent Air Miles one, and they took just about every right possible, in perpetuity, without restriction, regardless of whether or not you won (and if you won? Oh man was it bad).

I've read the terms you speak of though (I think we're talking about the same thing here), and some of them are worded poorly. iStock's sounds like they could still keep exclusive rights to your images, even if you aren't what they call "exclusive". It's just bad, grey legalease that could be reinterpreted a few ways, and one of them really isn't pretty. >.<


----------



## yogibear (Jul 17, 2009)

I think I would go insane if I tried to make all my money off stock photos.  Good God that would kill my love of photography


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 17, 2009)

yogibear said:


> I think I would go insane if I tried to make all my money off stock photos.  Good God that would kill my love of photography



Yeah, you would have to submit so many photos that you wouldn't have time for much else.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 17, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> yogibear said:
> 
> 
> > I think I would go insane if I tried to make all my money off stock photos.  Good God that would kill my love of photography
> ...



Stock Photography, from the photographer's perspective, is a business. Same as being a food photographer, let's say. If you're photographing food all day, you don't have time to do much else. Same difference.

It is just a matter of deciding what you want out of your photography work.

Do you want an income?

Do you want to be an artist?

Or do you just want to have some fun and keep your day job?


----------



## PushingTin (Jul 17, 2009)

Its not all that bad...

If you have some photos why not put them up on a stock site and make some extra cash.. sure beats just sitting on your pc!

I wouldnt quit your day job for the stock sites but once you upload a photo it can just keep on downloading and making you money.... not a hell of a lot but over time enough to help you upgrade your equipment.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 17, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Or do you just want to have some fun and keep your day job?



That's where I fit in, lol.

If I can make a few bucks on the side - Great!  It's not a high priority for me though.


----------



## KmH (Jul 17, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Bah. Photo contests are terrible. I read a recent Air Miles one, and they took just about every right possible, in perpetuity, without restriction, regardless of whether or not you won (and if you won? Oh man was it bad).
> 
> I've read the terms you speak of though (I think we're talking about the same thing here), and some of them are worded poorly. iStock's sounds like they could still keep exclusive rights to your images, even if you aren't what they call "exclusive". It's just bad, grey legalease that could be reinterpreted a few ways, and one of them really isn't pretty. >.<


The contracts I make my clients sign are heavily weighted in my favor too.


----------



## photographyfanatic (Jul 17, 2009)

From Shutterstock I just got a good laugh. They have almost a million images and one one of their pages it says something like - you can make $500 a month if your images are downloaded 2000 times. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! Yeah okay!


----------



## musicaleCA (Jul 17, 2009)

KmH said:


> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> > Bah. Photo contests are terrible. I read a recent Air Miles one, and they took just about every right possible, in perpetuity, without restriction, regardless of whether or not you won (and if you won? Oh man was it bad).
> ...



Heh. Am I the only one who writes clauses that do something to protect the client too? I mean, whenever the images will be used online, I have a section that says I hold them harmless for any damages that might be incurred because of copyright infringement (unless they encourage it, or are part of it, or affiliated with the people doing it, yadda yadda). It's kinda a no brainer that I can't hold them responsible, but it does make people feal safe.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 17, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > Or do you just want to have some fun and keep your day job?
> ...




Probably not a bad idea as far as stock is concerned. When I started shooting stock, the generalist type of stock agencies were fairly new and it was easy enough to find new subject to cover for them. If I was starting today, I'm not sure what I would go and shoot.

I don't spend a lot of time looking at that stuff but, from what I've seen, it seems like most of the new ones (probably the ones that pay $ .25 a picture ) sell mostly what I call clip art photos.


----------



## MUJKA (Jul 19, 2009)

Actually I was earning 600 usd a month from Shutterstock 
not counting Istock, Shutterstock, Dreamstime and Fotolia
with all I was making almost 2,000 bucks a month
I stopped sending photos and my rate goes all the way down
its very possible, I did it in 4 months time with  a 6 MPX ordinary camera.
When I first made my 25 cent, my husband laughed at me though:lmao:

PEOPLE LIKE *YURI ARCUS* make more than probably 20,000 usd  a month 
*watch this*


it works if you know what sells, maybe not extreme numbers but  anybody
who has an eye and understands commercial market can make at least 1,000 usd from stock with no special talent.
so no flower pictures;



Burcu :mrgreen:




photographyfanatic said:


> From Shutterstock I just got a good laugh. They have almost a million images and one one of their pages it says something like - you can make $500 a month if your images are downloaded 2000 times. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! Yeah okay!


----------

