sellphotos.com

Follow Your Dream

There’s A Lot Of Room For You

In the world of “art,” fads and crazes come and go. History shows us that all aspects of creative expression go through these phases as styles and public preferences change. Whether it’s in women’s fashions, men’s hairstyles, or photography, as the ability to gain new information speeds up, thanks to the Internet, we’ll see art preferences change even more rapidly.
Here at Photosource International our photobuyer-customers require photos that reflect (in a real-life way) the world around us. We aren’t photojournalists, whose customers are usually news blogs, TV, and websites that pay high fees for disaster pictures (the kind we see on the nightly news); nor are we paparazzi who get paid for photographing celebrities and their doings.

And especially we are not commercial stock photographers who specialize in wishful imagery (the world according to Getty, iStock, and Corbis).

The Internet is now drowning in this kind of imagery. Check out any of the on-line agencies. They’re all there: the generic lovely blonde with green sunglasses; a suit throwing documents into a briefcase; day-glow chartreuse tennis balls; a close-up of a wind-swept fashion model; and of course, the smartphone guy. Ho-hum, yawn.

Is this the kind of subject matter that attracts an emerging photographer to the field? In the majority of instances, people decide on a photographic career because of their love of capturing something meaningful or poetic with their camera. They win a prize, they take a photography course, and then they search for ways to make money with their talent, to provide for themselves and their family.

Eventually, they encounter a fork in the road. They learn about microstock, Royalty-Free, and Rights-Managed images. They embark on a career of supplying generic images, copying the current style and content favorites of the major stock houses.

If the photographer takes the copycat approach, most commercial stock shooters have found that the effortless way to produce a bunch of commercially-acceptable stock images is to capitalize on the ideas of the leading stock houses that have done the market research and have anticipated the trends. Are these generic stock images the easiest pictures for emerging commercial stock photographers to take? Yes, next to snapshots, they are.

This has always been the formula for the fashion industry, the music industry, and most other industries where taste and trends guide production. The recipe in the commercial stock photo industry (as opposed to editorial stock photographers) is to keep the current successful image concept the same, but add favored locations, clothing, hairstyles, etc.

Am I being too critical? I hope not. I’m asking, “Is this how you want to spend your creative life?” It seems to me that this kind of photographic activity takes not much more talent and creativity in photography awareness, than photographing fireworks, or hot air balloons, or sunsets and rainbows.

Here’s a test: check out the advertising photographic awards of the year before last, or ten years ago—this’ll give you an idea of the shelf life of such commercial stock photos.

Don’t be the stock photographer who wakes up one day and asks, “What have I been doing? Have I been shooting to please myself – or someone else?”

Sure, some of the major stock agencies call attention to real-life editorial images, or even historical images. Getty Images, for example, features the TIME-LIFE Magazine collection; Corbis features the Bettmann Archives. But these are not contemporary images.

Contemporary “editorial photographs” are usually interpreted as disaster pictures or photos that are newsworthy. This is commercial stock or journalism. Everyday-life photographs are left to be produced by individual photographers and street photographers who choose to interpret the world around them, void of any influence by art directors or monetary pressures.

Would Getty Images, in today’s stock photography climate, accept work from Margaret Bourke-White, the famed photographer of the ‘40’s? Probably not. “Too narrow, too focused in subject matter…” an art director would say. “Incapable of ‘selling product;’”
“not our market;” “too down-beat.”

Can you wear two hats? That is, take meaningful, memorable photos, and also engage in stockschlock to put bread on the table? Probably not. A few have tried, but speaking two languages at the very same time is near impossible.

But you can make money in editorial stock. Worldwide, $900 million is spent annually for “editorial stock photography.” Three fourths of that is actually “commercial editorial” stock, and about a quarter of that is what I define as true-life editorial stock, with around $60 million spent for it annually. That translates to about $10-$11,000 a day spent on non-commercial editorial stock.

Some publishers (of coffee table books, textbooks, etc.) spend $150,000 a month for photography. They’re not interested in inexpensive microstock images. They need appropriate editorial stock that reflects the quality of the word content in their projects, and they pay the higher prices these photos demand.

In short, if you follow the big money trail in stock photography you’ll find there are plenty of outlets for your kind of editorial stock photography. There are plenty of alternatives in today’s visual society. The choice is yours. You can follow your original dream.

As an editorial stock photographer you are going to find much more enjoyment when you are photographing subject matter that you like to take. Learn more about how to sell those pictures at PhotoSource International and the PhotoSourceBANK, Pine Lake Farm, 1910 35th Road, Osceola, WI 54020 USA. Rohn Engh is director of and publisher of PhotoStockNotes. E-mail: info@photosource.com Fax: 1 715 248 3800; www.photosource.com

The Copyright Law

Does it Protect You?

Photobuyers in the editorial field are a group of professionals who perform photo research and purchase either as staff members of publishing houses or as freelancers.

It’s a tight community, and “nicking” photos is not a practice that is condoned – nor would it come with any monetary reward or advantage.

In the advertising world, however, yes, the possibility of theft does exist. But again, not in the fraternity of photobuyers in the editorial field.

So how does the Copyright Law protect you?

According to the Copyright law:
Your copyright protection comes automatically when an original work of authorship (your photo) is fixed in a tangible medium of expression (i.e. you click the shutter on your camera).

Registration of your photo with the Copyright Office is optional (but you do have to register a photo before you file an infringement suit).

The use of a copyright notice © is optional for photos distributed after March 1, 1989. However, if you feel safer marking you photos with a copyright notice, it can take any of these three forms:

* © followed by a date and name.

* “Copyright” followed by a date and name.

* “Copr.” followed by a date and name.

Although the Berne Convention no longer requires that a copyright notice appears on or in your photograph to be fully protected, here at PhotoSource International we recommend that you mark your images with a copyright notice in the photo metadata available to you. If you choose to use an alt tag to display your copyright notices, check Google to learn different opinions on this practice.

Copyright for your photos is free.

As an editorial stock photographer you are going to find much more enjoyment when you are photographing subject matter that you like to take. Learn more about how to sell those pictures at PhotoSource International and the PhotoSourceBANK, Pine Lake Farm, 1910 35th Road, Osceola, WI 54020 USA. Rohn Engh is director of and publisher of PhotoStockNotes. E-mail: info@photosource.com Fax: 1 715 248 3800; www.photosource.com

The Arithmetic…

of Stock Photography

Editorial stock photoresearchers and photobuyers who list in and subscribe to our photo listing service…know that the fees paid for editorial photos requested on our PhotoDaily marketletter average between $100 and $300 per photo.

Using the mid-range of $200, it is interesting to compare this fee with the fee per image a commercial stock photographer ends up with from sales through agencies such as Getty Images (Getty) or Corbis Media.

These two giant companies take sometimes more than 80% of the sale price.

That’s right, for a $200 sale, the photographer with photos in these agencies receives $40. In contrast, the freelancer subscriber to our PhotoDaily, for a sale through the PhotoDaily, receives the full $200 (100% of the sale).

This low return from agency sales may be the reason why many commercial stock photographers receive most of their income from sources other than stock, such as annual reports, assignments, fashion, social media, catalogs, weddings, portraits, etc.

Pure editorial stock photographers are rarely full-time pros. Although they have what it takes to be a pro, they are frequently pros in other fields: education, medicine, sales, technology, law, transportation, etc. In their avocation or side-line business of editorial stock photography, they are able to devote their skills and talents to the select few specialty subjects of their choice, and realize the long-term promise of the extended value of their photo files.

It’s possible that a commercial stock photographer could sell three times as many photos through an agency than an editorial photographer sells directly to a select group of photobuyers within his or her editorial specialty area.

Placing images in a stock agency requires photographers to shoot what the agency needs (e.g. guys running while cellphoning). Working for yourself as an editorial stock photographer, you shoot what you want. As one photographer told me, “In commercial stock, the agency drives you. In editorial stock you’re the driver – of your own wishes.”

Yet another major factor: the long-term value of a photographer’s body of work. Many editorial photographers who were shooting editorial subjects back in the 80’s and 90’s, such as environmental issues, personalities, politics, schooling, social issues, etc. have told me that these pictures, for their historical value, are now making them more money than when they were originally shot.

These photos are used in books, magazine articles, CD collections, training courses, in ads, and in PBS and commercial TV series.

I haven’t heard of any commercial stock photographers who consider their commercial photos of twenty or thirty years ago to be marketable today. The “lifetime” value of a commercial stock photo is generally considered to be three to five years at most.

A testimony to the importance of editorial stock photography can be seen by browsing a special edition of Life Magazine put out several years ago that featured what they termed as the important photos of the 20th century.

All of these photos can be considered to be editorial stock. The same holds true for the photography featured in the prime PBS TV program on the impact of photography on our lives in the USA.

Am I saying “Mothers, don’t let your sons and daughters grow up to be commercial stock photographers?”
No, but most photographers are attracted to the vocation by the presumed opportunity to express themselves and to share their talent and knowledge with the world.

Because of the need to earn bread for the family and pay off the mortgage, they often find themselves lured into an aspect of the profession they didn’t expect, conforming to the dictates of the commercial world.

I like to put in a plug for sticking with the editorial arena, where that original goal can be fulfilled, in spite of sometimes facing financial constraints.

As an editorial stock photographer you are going to find much more enjoyment when you are photographing subject matter that you like to take. Learn more about how to sell those pictures at PhotoSource International and the PhotoSourceBANK, Pine Lake Farm, 1910 35th Road, Osceola, WI 54020 USA. Rohn Engh is director of and publisher of PhotoStockNotes. E-mail: info[at]photosource[dot]com Fax: 1 715 248 3800; www.photosource.com

AN AFTER THOUGHT: Probably one of the most influencial photography magazine in the USA is PhotoDistrict News. In the upcoming issue(February 2012) the PDN’s director of the pdN-sponsored PhotoPlus Expo 2011 lauds the evennt’s success and its strong attendance interest in wedding, portrait, nature/landscape, and fine art photography. There was no mention of editorial photography.
I thought that to be curious because when I made an assessment of all the photographs in the current upcoming February issue, I found this. Of the photos in the February PDN magazine, 24 were portraits, 51 were for advertisements, and 81 were editorial photos. Should PhotoPlusExpo do something to attract editorial (stock, documentary, street, journalist) photographers to it? Also important to note is February was their annual portrait issue. Check it out. -RE