stock photos....

audi

so I got a call today from Wish-Stock, a stock photo agency created by a group of photographers to re-open the stock photo world to photographers. The person on the phone gave me some background info on their company and said that they give 85% commission to the photographer, I retain all rights to the photos, and its easy for buyers becuase they dont have to nickel and dime negotiate with me. There is a fee I have to pay, but it is basically for how many photos I want in my portfolio on the web site.

My question is - what is your experience thus far selling stock? I know that this particular company is trying to change the rules, but does it seem like a good company? Has anyone heard of them before?

thanks everyone,

audi

PossumCorner

Hi, I looked at their website, it's okay, the search facility seemed a bit not so good. They appear to be inviting application to join but I did not see any prices in a fairly quick look. And it mentioned finding some artists via Prophoto so I looked at their link (and wondered why Smugmug does not have a link if they're also approaching Smugmug members to join). Which does not answer your question of whether it is "a good company", but if they really intend achieving something new and different in method, surely that's a good start.

Angelo

Audi:

What I DON'T know about selling photos could fill a book. What I DO know about buying photos I'll share with you.

I buy photos and illustrations regularly for use in ads, marketing materials, displays, etc.

I purchase at several sites including, GettyOne.com or EyeWire.com, as well as directly from photographers.

Getty is an example of a big business that is eating up its competition. That is no doubt bad news for both the artists and the buying clients.

I've checked out Wish-Stock and agree their "search" needs to be improved. I also noted that quite a few images that turned up probably should not be made available for sale due to copyright infringement on the subject matter (eg: Chinese Theater in Hollywood; Paris Hotel in Las Vegas). Perhaps they're just flooding their pages right now to boost enrollment and interest with the intent of culling the portfolio later.

I have two friends who are "commercial" photographers and I know they earn a BUNDLE on their stock images. Stuff you see everyday in magazine ads, in store windows (can you say Soy Latte?) and on the sides of buses. I also know they b*tch regularly about how they are r*ped by the sellers.

I think, bottom line, if Wish-Stock pays 80% of fees to you, and the subscription cost is manageable, and they don't strangle you with conditions, try it out.
Any and all fees and commissions are just a part of doing business. Only you can decide what ratio of cost/benefit is comfortable.

Good luck.

jrykowski

85% seems high compared to the 20% that iStockphoto.com gives. But, iStockphoto.com doesn't charge you up-front to submit photos to them either... And they sell photos starting at $1 for royalty-free - so seem to be going for bulk licensing to make any money.

sludge01

From Wishstock's "Site Use and License Agreement" page (http://www.wish-stock.com/cf_license.cfm):

What is Permitted
For a period of 90 days from date of purchase, Licensee has the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to copy, reproduce, transmit and display the Image an unlimited number of times in any and all media for the following purposes:

1. Product Packaging;
2. Advertising and promotional materials;
3. Online or Electronic Distribution Systems, including Web page Design to a maximum resolution of 72 dpi and 5 inches at its longest dimension;
4. Broadcast and Theatrical Exhibitions;
5. Publications and Products not for resale; and
6. Clothing, greeting cards, stationary, posters, etc.
7. Any other uses approved in writing by Wishstock.

So you're selling ALL potential uses of your photo in one shot for a flat price for 90 days, when you should be getting separate fees for every intended use.

Everybody has their own idea of what they want to get out of stock photography, but this situation is usually considered a ripoff. I'd steer clear.

Bystander

sludge01 wrote:

From Wishstock's "Site Use and License Agreement" page (http://www.wish-stock.com/cf_license.cfm):


So you're selling ALL potential uses of your photo in one shot for a flat price for 90 days, when you should be getting separate fees for every intended use.

Everybody has their own idea of what they want to get out of stock photography, but this situation is usually considered a ripoff. I'd steer clear.

The deal is non-exclusive so it seems you are able to sell the photo over and over again, at least in theory.

mercphoto

Bystander wrote:

The deal is non-exclusive so it seems you are able to sell the photo over and over again, at least in theory.

You missed the point. For a period of 90 days that one client can use that photo in as many places as they want. As opposed to paying for multiple uses. This is not a good deal UNLESS that 90-day fee is very high.

sludge01

Exactly, Merc.

And I really doubt the fee is anywhere near high enough.

erich6

Stock agencies and getting your foot in the door....
Hi everyone,

I've been searching the Dgrin threads for information on stock agencies and stock photography and there isn't a whole lot. Thought maybe I can use this one to ask some basic questions.

It seems to me that stock agencies fall in two major categories (there are probably other ways to categorize but this is a rough take): 1) "traditional" in the sense that you have to work hard at getting a portfolio accepted and then your photos are sold for specific purpose and with limited rights (for generally hundreds of dollars); and 2) "internet/wholesale" stock agencies where you submit your photos online and their licensed royalty-free for a very cheap price (like songs from Napster) at $1.00 which translates to pennies earning.

What does it take to get into a well-established, more traditional, stock agency like Corbis or Getty? What kind of portfolios do they look for? Is it generally for pro's or are there any amateur's here that have gotten their stuff in?

Has anyone been successful with the new wave of stock agencies like iStockphoto.com and Shutterstock.com? Frankly, they seem like a ripoff to me (at least for the photographer). Has anyone made over $200 with these agencies?

Erich

mercphoto

I'm sure cheap stock has some useful purpose somewhere for something. I can easily envision a certain class of customer who cannot afford normal photography rates, does not need stellar images, and does not need unique images, but does need something.

But making a lot of money selling photos for a $1 at a time? That I just don't see. I can see this being a good deal for the customer but can't see it being a good deal for the photographer.

THE TOUCH

Comments on Stock Agencies?
I'd like to run this one through again. Does anyone on Dgrin submit to stock agencies? Does anyone have agency recommendations? Things to look out for? Things to consider ahead of time?

I'm considering this on the side but really don't know the good from the bad!

Thanks!

erich6 wrote:

Hi everyone,

I've been searching the Dgrin threads for information on stock agencies and stock photography and there isn't a whole lot. Thought maybe I can use this one to ask some basic questions.

It seems to me that stock agencies fall in two major categories (there are probably other ways to categorize but this is a rough take): 1) "traditional" in the sense that you have to work hard at getting a portfolio accepted and then your photos are sold for specific purpose and with limited rights (for generally hundreds of dollars); and 2) "internet/wholesale" stock agencies where you submit your photos online and their licensed royalty-free for a very cheap price (like songs from Napster) at $1.00 which translates to pennies earning.

What does it take to get into a well-established, more traditional, stock agency like Corbis or Getty? What kind of portfolios do they look for? Is it generally for pro's or are there any amateur's here that have gotten their stuff in?

Has anyone been successful with the new wave of stock agencies like iStockphoto.com and Shutterstock.com? Frankly, they seem like a ripoff to me (at least for the photographer). Has anyone made over $200 with these agencies?

Erich