who prices stock photography?

[Luigi]

good day,

i was just wondering, who prices the photos, when you submit them to the different stock agencies - from istock and shutter stock to getty and corbis?

on that point, do you or they determine the pricing factors for costing the photos?

oh and last, how do you decide on RM or RF? what makes one photo work as RM and the other as RF?

thanks!

Luigi

 

[Josh66]

They decide the price. Usually the more popular it is (more sales), the more expensive it is.

If you choose to make buying the rights to the photo an option - you set the price for that.


...I'll let someone else answer the RM vs. RF part.

 

[gatay]

first, i think so!
and i choose RM

 

[Moonb007]

Right Managed is basically a photo that has a model release. Royalty Free - means there is nothing on the image that is copy righted. With all stock sites you maintain your copyrights to the images unless you choose to personal sell them...which you dont want to do. Check out my website below for a list of good stock sites...in the sig.

90% of stock sites set their prices, but there are a few that you can set...cutcaster is one of those.

 

[Josh66]

Dreamstime and Stockxpert ( STOCKXPERT - Royalty free stock photography community ) are the only ones I like... These are the only two I bother putting new stuff on.

I heard good things about 123RF so I thought I'd try them, but after SIX MONTHS I am still getting this:

I haven't even bothered trying to upload more. Those were all uploaded in JUNE. Not sure if that's normal for them, or if my pictures just 'got lost'.

I know it takes a few days for your pictures to get approved, but that is ridiculous.

Fotolia looks nice, but the view to sale ratio seems a little out-of-whack.
Thousands of views, very few sales. After seeing pictures pinned to cubicle walls with Fotolia watermarks on them, I know why the view:sale ratio is so disproportional.

Fotolia & iStock are the two main ones I see watermarked (****ty) prints from.
Not sure why... It's not because of the effectiveness of the watermark. I think it's just that those are the two places all of the people who have no intention of paying something for a picture go.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

First you need to understand the difference between a stock website and a stock agency.

No stock agency sells an image for $ .25 the way some of the stock sites do. Then again, no stock agency will let you bring in a dozen photos and welcome you.

Stock agencies require a minimum number of photos (usually a few hundreds) on one subject/theme before they even look at your work. Those photos need to all be great. Serious stock photography is a business, not something you send a couple photos to every week or so. On the other hand, if you do make it in, you can then expect very decent pay offs for your images.

 

[Josh66]

Are you saying that I need to upload more to them to get anything approved (like they have been sitting there waiting for the rest of them for the last 6 months), or just generally commenting and not directly related to what I posted?

I know that these 'micro stock' sites are a different animal than a real stock agency, and that $1 or less per image is pretty much a joke...

That being said - on one hand, I don't mind. On the other, it annoys the hell out of me and makes me wonder why I ever even gave them anything.

I never really considered it a "source of income", I mainly just did it as an experiment.
I found out what I wanted to find out, and I still upload new stuff occasionally... Sometimes I wonder why, lol.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Well, Josh, I wasn't talking to you specifically. More like to anyone interested.

And especially to anyone wanting to get an income out of it. Which is quite possible if it is approached right. Which is not going to happen with what you call "micro stock" and what I call "stock websites."

The minimum I'm talking about is in relation to serious stock agencies. Without that minimum you just don't get in. Once you do get in, they do relax the requirements some. Mostly depending on how salable your photos are and, then, with time, how much they like you... lol.

There is money in stock and there always will be because the planet keeps changing. But one has to be realistic. A stock agency does not want to look at your 12 monthly photos when they can sort thru another photographer's 999 that they know are going to be good enough to sell.

There are a few dollars to be made with micro stock and maybe someone can tell us a story of actually making very nice dollars but I kind of doubt it.

 

[Josh66]

There are a few dollars to be made with micro stock and maybe someone can tell us a story of actually making very nice dollars but I kind of doubt it.

It is possible... They say there that he makes $25,000 a month from stock (microstock, and regular stock agencies...most of his income is probably not from microstock). Not bad.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

There are a few dollars to be made with micro stock and maybe someone can tell us a story of actually making very nice dollars but I kind of doubt it.

It is possible... They say there that he makes $25,000 a month from stock (microstock, and regular stock agencies...most of his income is probably not from microstock). Not bad.

A month?

I'd love to see the tax returns before I believe that one... :lmao::lmao::lmao:

 

[SimpleFoto]

good day,

i was just wondering, who prices the photos, when you submit them to the different stock agencies - from istock and shutter stock to getty and corbis?

on that point, do you or they determine the pricing factors for costing the photos?

oh and last, how do you decide on RM or RF? what makes one photo work as RM and the other as RF?

thanks!

Luigi

It depends on the site. Most of the microstock sites set their prices themselves, meaning you upload a photo and the price is set the same as it is for every other photo. Prices may vary if your image is popular, or if you are exclusive but the same rules apply to everyone. A very small number of sites have tried a system where users can set their own prices. It has never worked very well.

You decide where the image is RF or RM. All micro agencies are RF, Alamy takes both, Getty takes both.

RF images can have people in them as well, but the people have to have signed a model release showing you have permission to take their photo.

 

[photograham]

I would think most set the price themselves

 

[KmH]

There are a few dollars to be made with micro stock and maybe someone can tell us a story of actually making very nice dollars but I kind of doubt it.

It is possible... They say there that he makes $25,000 a month from stock (microstock, and regular stock agencies...most of his income is probably not from microstock). Not bad.

A month?

I'd love to see the tax returns before I believe that one... :lmao::lmao::lmao:

Yuri Arcurs is the king of microstock right now. He is an exception for sure.

If you're wanting to make money from stock photography, look to RM rather than RF.

This:

Royalty Free - means there is nothing on the image that is copy righted [sic].

is not true.

A quick look at Wikipedia.org, yields the following information:

Royalty Free (RF) means the buyers -
Pay a one-time fee to use the image multiple times for multiple purposes (with limits).
No time limit on when the buyer can use an image.
No one can have exclusive rights of a Royalty-free image (the photographer can sell the image as many times as he or she wants).
A Royalty-free image usually has a limit to how many times the buyer can reproduce it. For example, a license might allow the buyer to print 500,000 brochures with the purchased image. The amount of copies made is called the print run. The buyer is required to pay a fee per brochure, usually 1 to 3 cents, for additional prints. Magazines with a large print run cannot use a standard Royalty-free license and therefore they either purchase images with a Rights-managed license or have in-house photographers.

Rights managed (RM) means -

The value of a license is determined by the use of the image, which is generally broken down along these lines;

• Usage: (eg. Advertising - "Above the Line", Corporate - "Below the Line" or Editorial - "News Media")
• Specific Use: (eg. Billboard, Annual Report, Newspaper article)
• Duration: (eg. 1 month, 2 months, 1 Year, 2 Years etc)
• Print Run: (eg. up to 10,000, up to 1m)
• Territory: (eg; USA, Europe, UK, Germany, or whatever combination of territories are required)
• Size: (how big is the image to be used - 1/4 page, 1/2 page, full page, or double page spread)
• Industry: (Industry type - eg. Consumer Electronics, Marine Engineering, Financial Services etc)
• Exclusivity: (Exclusive, or Non Exclusive)

The terms of the license are clearly defined and negotiated so that the purchaser receives maximum value, and is protected in their purchase by a certain level of exclusivity.
Rights-managed licenses provide assurance that an image will not be used by someone else in a conflicting manner. The agreement can include exclusivity, and usually recognises that this represents added value. Not all Rights-managed licenses are exclusive, that must be stipulated in the agreement.
A Rights-managed image usually allows a much larger print run per image than a Royalty-free license.
Editorial is a form of rights-managed license when there are no releases for the subjects. Since there are no releases the images cannot be used for advertising or to depict controversial subjects, only for news or educational purposes.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

It is possible... They say there that he makes $25,000 a month from stock (microstock, and regular stock agencies...most of his income is probably not from microstock). Not bad.

A month?

I'd love to see the tax returns before I believe that one... :lmao::lmao::lmao:

Yuri Arcurs is the king of microstock right now. He is an exception for sure.

Well, now that I've had a chance to look him up, it seems like he doesn't make any money.

Yes he sells quite a bit. Actually, it seems it is quite a bit more than $25,000 a month but he says he hasn't broken even yet. It also seems he's got a few photographers working for him... I counted 12 (13 if he does any shooting himself) so it is not a whole lot of sales when divided by the number of shooters.

 

[burstintoflame81]

Get this book at your local library

Amazon.com: Sell & Re-Sell Your Photos (9781582971766): Rohn Engh: Books

It is a little dated in terms of technology but addresses the business aspect of things pretty well. It talks of how to determine what to charge for a photo and what factors to consider. A stock agency will determine the price, but you can also submit photos with a cover letter stating your fees for B&W or Color, Inside or Cover etc. It also talks alot about taxes and starting your own stock photo business which I found very good.