Every so often I get requests via Flickr from people who want to use my photos in their magazines, books, websites, etc. So far I've always said yes: I get credit and a free copy of whatever they're publishing. But these requests are starting to come more often, and have no idea how to start asking for money.
My initial thought is - if I ask to be paid, they'll find another photo they can use for free, and I won't get the credit and free book ;)
I've looked into Corbis, but they have certain equipment requirements that I don't meet (I'm by no means a professional), so that's out for now... I just wonder if there's a way to translate my hobby into a little extra cash now and then. Any ideas?
As someone that buys photos for client's marketing efforts, I can tell you that there is a lot of cash to be made. Prices I've paid range from cheap (iStock, a few bucks) to well over a thousand for one image for a 2 year license.
Getty and Corbis have better photos, for sure, but many don't look 'pro' quality.
I'd charge a few bucks for a limited license and a flat fee for unlimited usage (iStock is unlimited, more or less). You'd be surprised how quickly it can accumulate (I am still making cash off of 3D models I made 5 years ago).
Don't listen to Trace about selling photos. He knows not what he speaks. Sorry Trace, but your advice isn't great. :)
I sell stock photography with Alamy, Iris/Inmagine Photos, and Arcangel Images...and will offer some advice:
1st, research the difference between different types of licensing options. The two major ones are Rights Managed and Royalty Free. There are legal implications for these types of licenses. I ALWAYS stay away from Royalty Free. But do your own research and determine what's best for you. Just note that if you don't have model or property releases, you CANNOT sell royalty free. And they must be sold for editorial use (not commercial or advertising). You really need to know the differences here for your own protection.
2nd, Don't use istockphoto, or any other microstock site for that matter, to sell your photos. It's an absolute scam, and is responsible for devaluing the stock photography industry. There are very strong opinions about this throughout photography communities. Google it. See this site for a list of major agencies if you think you're good enough and have camera equipment that is accepted.
3rd, reference this stock calculator for general pricing if you're selling the images yourself. It allows you to determine type of use, size, distribution quantity, and overall price, etc. You can use that noone else offers, then start higher.
4th, make sure you have a signed contract for licensed usage. Some stock agencies have these on their site for their clients to reference. It would do you good to use one as a template and modify it to your liking.
5th, don't sell microstock! I know, that was my 2nd point, but it's important enough to reiterate it here.
6th...If they're not willing to pay you, then they shouldn't use the image. You can give away your work for free if you want, but really, you are doing yourself a disservice. They're a business, and they're profiting from using your image, therefore they should pay you for that usage. Plain and simple.
@Evan - can you post a link to your flickr page? I am just starting to do photography as a hobby, just bought my first CANON XSI SLR. I don't really think I can make any money on any of those sites, because I just take photos of architecture for my own research. But, it is interesting to know that people might actually buy photography and money can be made from a hobby.
like you, zen, I really only take photos for my own satisfaction, and Flickr is a convenient repository that I can access from home & work. But people have told me that my photos are good and I should try getting some published...
FP, a lot of the sites you linked have specific equipment requirements that I don't meet. It seems odd to me that these agencies would require - for example - 10 megapixel, RAW format, shot with a DSLR... isn't the final image what matters? Could you explain why YOU think microstock sites are "a scam"? It's appealing to me because there are no such requirements on istockphoto, so I could get started with the photos I have (11,000+ on Flickr... damn!) and not have to consciously think about "becoming a photographer" and investing in better equipment yet. I do appreciate your advice, and I'll do some more research, but it seems to me like 'microstock' would be an easy transition from what I'm already doing, just with the advantage of a possible paycheck...
great responses so far guys... and i was expecting some snarky comments about how "everyone thinks they're a photographer"
1. Microstock is a fruitless venture for 99.9% of contributors. Go to a microstock website and find out how much they pay the photographer for each image sold. It is usually in the realm of 20%. The microstock agency pockets the other 80%. You do all the work, they pocket the profits.
2. Microstock agencies sell your images for as little as only a dollar per image. That gives you a profit of less than a quarter per image. In order to make $50 off a microstock site, you'd need to sell 200 images.
Good luck achieving that in the next 15 years.
3. Based on my own experiences, a non-microstock agency yields a much greater return. I've been with Alamy for just 1 year now and I've sold over $1,000 worth of images. Mind you, I've only sold 6 photos so far.
4. Microstock has hurt the stock industry immensely, and especially the lives of professional photographers who do this for a living. It has reduced the value of a photograph. It is basically the Walmart of stock agencies. Cheap, cheap, cheap is the motto. Anyone can post, sell, and pretend they have what it takes to make a dollar (literally just a dollar, mind you). But the reality is that the vast majority of contributors are just wasting their time sizing, editing, uploading, keywording, describing, etc...all for a quarter. How valuable is your time? How valuable is your equipment? How valuable is your photography? Certainly a stock photography site does not offer you any amount of value for your efforts.
5. Actually, Alamy and several others do not require a12MP DSLR. In fact, a Nikon D40 (a $400, 6MP camera) is an accepted camera for them. Some others only accept 12mp, true, but the level of quality expected is significantly better than istockphoto. Some sites need to weed out the amateurs from the pros.
6. I looked at your flickr page. 99% of those images you got up there would never sell on istockphoto because you'd need model and/or property releases...Microstock is not known for non-royalty free images...though a few exist. I cannot recommend any because I refuse to even consider them myself.
If you do end up deciding to do microstock, I wish you luck...because you're gonna be wasting your time and effort on a shitty, non-profitable business model. That's the reality...but perhaps you need to experience the feeling of defeat personally rather than take my word for it.
Wow Evan!
Very impressive collection of architectural photography, I believe you have more photos than professional photographers! You should definitely post some of the best photos for sale, and make a ton of cash!
Evan I have to agree with FP on most of his points on licensing, microstock, and releases.
In terms of quality of work or "isn't the final image what matters?" It's not odd that agencies require a minimum set of standards for the images submitted.
There are professional photographers and amateur photographers, and there is a divide in the quality produced. And A LOT of the Pros also sell A LOT of stock. The quality of the stock they produce is on par with the requirements of the Ad agencies that use them (BBDO, Foote Cone & Belding,Leo Burnett, etc.)
These agencies pay Pro Photographers thousands of dollars a day to shoot amazing images for their clients. These same agencies use stock, and the stock they look for is on the same level of quality as what they usually contract/hire a photographer for a shoot. So the stock has to meet those minumum requirements (RAW, Megapixels, releases, quality, etc).
getting paid for photography
Every so often I get requests via Flickr from people who want to use my photos in their magazines, books, websites, etc. So far I've always said yes: I get credit and a free copy of whatever they're publishing. But these requests are starting to come more often, and have no idea how to start asking for money.
My initial thought is - if I ask to be paid, they'll find another photo they can use for free, and I won't get the credit and free book ;)
I've looked into Corbis, but they have certain equipment requirements that I don't meet (I'm by no means a professional), so that's out for now... I just wonder if there's a way to translate my hobby into a little extra cash now and then. Any ideas?
iStockphoto?
As someone that buys photos for client's marketing efforts, I can tell you that there is a lot of cash to be made. Prices I've paid range from cheap (iStock, a few bucks) to well over a thousand for one image for a 2 year license.
Getty and Corbis have better photos, for sure, but many don't look 'pro' quality.
I'd charge a few bucks for a limited license and a flat fee for unlimited usage (iStock is unlimited, more or less). You'd be surprised how quickly it can accumulate (I am still making cash off of 3D models I made 5 years ago).
Evan,
Don't listen to Trace about selling photos. He knows not what he speaks. Sorry Trace, but your advice isn't great. :)
I sell stock photography with Alamy, Iris/Inmagine Photos, and Arcangel Images...and will offer some advice:
1st, research the difference between different types of licensing options. The two major ones are Rights Managed and Royalty Free. There are legal implications for these types of licenses. I ALWAYS stay away from Royalty Free. But do your own research and determine what's best for you. Just note that if you don't have model or property releases, you CANNOT sell royalty free. And they must be sold for editorial use (not commercial or advertising). You really need to know the differences here for your own protection.
2nd, Don't use istockphoto, or any other microstock site for that matter, to sell your photos. It's an absolute scam, and is responsible for devaluing the stock photography industry. There are very strong opinions about this throughout photography communities. Google it. See this site for a list of major agencies if you think you're good enough and have camera equipment that is accepted.
3rd, reference this stock calculator for general pricing if you're selling the images yourself. It allows you to determine type of use, size, distribution quantity, and overall price, etc. You can use that noone else offers, then start higher.
4th, make sure you have a signed contract for licensed usage. Some stock agencies have these on their site for their clients to reference. It would do you good to use one as a template and modify it to your liking.
5th, don't sell microstock! I know, that was my 2nd point, but it's important enough to reiterate it here.
6th...If they're not willing to pay you, then they shouldn't use the image. You can give away your work for free if you want, but really, you are doing yourself a disservice. They're a business, and they're profiting from using your image, therefore they should pay you for that usage. Plain and simple.
Good luck.
@Evan - can you post a link to your flickr page? I am just starting to do photography as a hobby, just bought my first CANON XSI SLR. I don't really think I can make any money on any of those sites, because I just take photos of architecture for my own research. But, it is interesting to know that people might actually buy photography and money can be made from a hobby.
my flickr page:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/evandagan/
like you, zen, I really only take photos for my own satisfaction, and Flickr is a convenient repository that I can access from home & work. But people have told me that my photos are good and I should try getting some published...
FP, a lot of the sites you linked have specific equipment requirements that I don't meet. It seems odd to me that these agencies would require - for example - 10 megapixel, RAW format, shot with a DSLR... isn't the final image what matters? Could you explain why YOU think microstock sites are "a scam"? It's appealing to me because there are no such requirements on istockphoto, so I could get started with the photos I have (11,000+ on Flickr... damn!) and not have to consciously think about "becoming a photographer" and investing in better equipment yet. I do appreciate your advice, and I'll do some more research, but it seems to me like 'microstock' would be an easy transition from what I'm already doing, just with the advantage of a possible paycheck...
great responses so far guys... and i was expecting some snarky comments about how "everyone thinks they're a photographer"
-e
Evan,
1. Microstock is a fruitless venture for 99.9% of contributors. Go to a microstock website and find out how much they pay the photographer for each image sold. It is usually in the realm of 20%. The microstock agency pockets the other 80%. You do all the work, they pocket the profits.
2. Microstock agencies sell your images for as little as only a dollar per image. That gives you a profit of less than a quarter per image. In order to make $50 off a microstock site, you'd need to sell 200 images.
Good luck achieving that in the next 15 years.
3. Based on my own experiences, a non-microstock agency yields a much greater return. I've been with Alamy for just 1 year now and I've sold over $1,000 worth of images. Mind you, I've only sold 6 photos so far.
4. Microstock has hurt the stock industry immensely, and especially the lives of professional photographers who do this for a living. It has reduced the value of a photograph. It is basically the Walmart of stock agencies. Cheap, cheap, cheap is the motto. Anyone can post, sell, and pretend they have what it takes to make a dollar (literally just a dollar, mind you). But the reality is that the vast majority of contributors are just wasting their time sizing, editing, uploading, keywording, describing, etc...all for a quarter. How valuable is your time? How valuable is your equipment? How valuable is your photography? Certainly a stock photography site does not offer you any amount of value for your efforts.
5. Actually, Alamy and several others do not require a12MP DSLR. In fact, a Nikon D40 (a $400, 6MP camera) is an accepted camera for them. Some others only accept 12mp, true, but the level of quality expected is significantly better than istockphoto. Some sites need to weed out the amateurs from the pros.
6. I looked at your flickr page. 99% of those images you got up there would never sell on istockphoto because you'd need model and/or property releases...Microstock is not known for non-royalty free images...though a few exist. I cannot recommend any because I refuse to even consider them myself.
If you do end up deciding to do microstock, I wish you luck...because you're gonna be wasting your time and effort on a shitty, non-profitable business model. That's the reality...but perhaps you need to experience the feeling of defeat personally rather than take my word for it.
Wow Evan!
Very impressive collection of architectural photography, I believe you have more photos than professional photographers! You should definitely post some of the best photos for sale, and make a ton of cash!
Evan I have to agree with FP on most of his points on licensing, microstock, and releases.
In terms of quality of work or "isn't the final image what matters?" It's not odd that agencies require a minimum set of standards for the images submitted.
There are professional photographers and amateur photographers, and there is a divide in the quality produced. And A LOT of the Pros also sell A LOT of stock. The quality of the stock they produce is on par with the requirements of the Ad agencies that use them (BBDO, Foote Cone & Belding,Leo Burnett, etc.)
These agencies pay Pro Photographers thousands of dollars a day to shoot amazing images for their clients. These same agencies use stock, and the stock they look for is on the same level of quality as what they usually contract/hire a photographer for a shoot. So the stock has to meet those minumum requirements (RAW, Megapixels, releases, quality, etc).
My 2 cents (from experience)
Some pros:
http://www.timgriffith.com/
http://www.boboconnor.net/
http://www.garryowens.com/
http://www.steffenjahn.com
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.