I am represented by GalleryStock. I think they have a lot of potential, but they will need to spend more money on marketing if they are going to succeed. If you have more specific questions you can email me at michael@michaelprince.com.

Regards,

michael

While photographers are stubborn, this has nothing to do with why a union has not been formed.

Even if photographers could form a union, very few would actually join and the majority would not, therefore, leaving no reason to have a union. As hard as it is to imagine, it would be a bigger mess than what exists now. Photographers have always taken great pride in their “lone wolf” mentality although doing so has not been to their benefit.

I have done enormous amounts of research and have to
Flickr can provide in a pinch. I just love giving an unsuspecting photog some exposure. There are gems to be found underneath rocks sometimes. It is one part of what makes the more maddening photo research tolerable!

If photographers were to unionize, they would no longer control their copyright. Everything they would do would be work for hire. The idea of unionization was broached in the 70’s and rejected for that reason.

I agree that higher royalty rates seem tempting, but not realistic yet….. I am quite sure that 1000 images on Getty will net more $$$ than the same amount on the other websites. Jupiter RM is nice, but the photographer only gets paid when Jupiter gets paid… and one cannot build a business around such practices. I would gladly give Jupiter a much bigger slice of my pie, but not with those business practices.

As for who gets hired for fabulous editorial rates of $300 per day? Who gives a Bleep! Do those assignments if you like, but you’re no rock star, not for that kind of money. Actors, for god’s sake, have a union. ACTORS! But not photographers. The film industry has a UNION for every job you can think of…. but not photographers. So until photographers have any kind of standards or bargaining chip, there will always be someone hotter, with a loaded daddy, or a better entourage waiting to shoot whatever it is you want to shoot for a magazine….. that’s just the way it is unless we all go on strike and make photo editors pick up their cameras….

While I think companies like Photoshelter and Digital Railroad are valuable, as A Stock Photo Editor wrote, “there are significant barriers that they need to overcome…” While the 70% share to photographers is generous, I don’t believe it is sustainable in the long term. Marketing and promotion is key and the extent of their marketing needs to be huge in order to make even the smallest dent. Also, because of these companies indemnification policies, ad agencies and most large design firms are not likely to use them. This will be a big stumbling block for them and at some point will have to be addressed.

Oh as a side note rejection to a photog should not be so bad. Just think of the poor little images you reject everyday. So times it just a bad day for someone keep trying. And let it role off your back not all images are stock.

Whenever boarding the Motor Vessel Swanson, listen for the well-channelled voice of T. J. Hooker, er, T. J. Szarkowski, who more than once remarked “in photography, it really helps to have money.” T. J.’s other epithets included “Stieglitz had a rich daddy” and “Cartier-Bresson had a rich daddy.”

“I like the fact that Photoshelter is paying their photographers, 70% rather than the high fees that Getty takes. I’ll give them a call as well.”

If, and it’s a very big if these days as to whether they can be accepted by Getty Images, the earning potential is potentially much greater because of the reach Getty and other major agencies have. So while 70% sounds great, it depends what you are earning 70% of.

I totally agree with the following statement @ 39:

“But I also think that there are significant barriers that they need to overcome, and I believe that overcoming those barriers will ultimately make them look much more like a conventional agency than they do today.”

“Businesses like Photoshelter and Digital Railroad should, in my opinion, be used as an additional resource for your imagery, not the sole source.”

Do you mean, that a photographer is allowed to give their images to more than one stock agency at a time?

I like the fact that Photoshelter is paying their photographers, 70% rather than the high fees that Getty takes. I’ll give them a call as well.

Thank you again for your reply, and encouragement.

I edit and art direct (and sometimes shoot) for a stock photography agency, and we are always striving to hit a difficult balance. We need images that sell to multiple clients, and that sustain our business. And we need images that innovate, that might only sell once (if at all), but which also sustain our interest in coming to the office and turning the crank on our workflow every day. These latter images also serve to define our brand and to give our (very small) company some sense of presence in the stock photography ecosystem. The collections of images that fulfill these two imperatives overlap, but they do not match up exactly, or even very closely.

Nearly all of the people that I have met who work for stock photography agencies are like me and my co-workers. We struggle to find the right balance between commerce and art, and sometimes succeed.

I think there is a common misperception that good photography and good stock photography (and good photographers and good stock photographers) are the same. But they aren’t, and I don’t recommend pursuing a career in stock photography unless you really want to be a good stock photographer, and thereby embrace all of the business practices implied by the industry.

If you are “only” a good photographer, I encourage you to involve yourself in the stock photography ecosystem at whatever level you can make work for you. But please don’t refuse to do the practices that have been demonstrated by concrete results generate the most sales and to be most profitable, then complain because you are not selling enough.

I have attended one of the PhotoShelter events, and I think that what they are trying to do is admirable. If they prove successful, it will be a great benefit for photography, for photographers and for the industry. But I also think that there are significant barriers that they need to overcome, and I believe that overcoming those barriers will ultimately make them look much more like a conventional agency than they do today.

Getty’s 2006 annual earnings were $807.3 million and in 2007 they jumped to $857.6 million. 2008 first quarter was at $233 million – if that stays the same throughout the year, their annual revenues will be in excess of $920 million.

Compare that to Corbis at around $250 million and Jupiter whose 2007 revenues were at $140 million. Guess who’s going where for images. While agency art buyers and photo editors all say they hate Getty, in the end, their feelings don’t really seem to matter much.

Businesses like Photoshelter and Digital Railroad should, in my opinion, be used as an additional resource for your imagery, not the sole source.

I think much of what get misinterpreted as arrogance around here are the things I say that are directed at Photo Editors. I’d say about half is me talking to the Photo Editors that read the blog (most don’t comment but email me instead) and so photographers are hearing half a conversation.

@ 35 Jodi: Why don’t you ask them?

@ 36 Ian: I think they don’t like the look of digital is all. If you can make it look like film, fine. If they want to be the only magazine in the country that requires a “film” look I think that’s great. It makes your product different than everyone else.

Rob, what I noticed was that, one had to call them to buy an image, when I called there was Voice Mail, and it was during the day. Wouldn’t that deter editors? Isn’t the idea of going to a stock house, other than being cheaper, that you can get your image quickly? My question leads to, anyone had any experience dealing with gallerystock to get an image?

@24, Debra, thanks for your response, to my question. May I ask how one would contact one of the contributers on gallerystock? if they are all top tier photographers, how would one even get through to speaking with one of them? Also please not my post to Lee, they are not all from Bill Charles and Bernstein & Andriulli, doesn’t that mean that they will consider taking other photographers? As I don’t know all the photographers on the gallerystock site, by name or reputation, would you or anyone else be able to comment on how talented these people are? In other words, should I give up and not even try gallerystock?, as they are too high end a stock house for photographers not represented by anyone!! In which case could you suggest other stock houses? Thanks

34@ The Jackanory, Hi, and thanks for your response, you say they have really expanded the photographer numbers, and all are top tier talent. Is that a good thing or bad? To expand so quickly? and are all their Photographers very high end as you say they are? Would I even be able to approach such a place? Or will it be very restrictive in it’s selection?

Rob, would you know how they select a photographer? what is the criteria? Thanks to everyone who answered.

hadn’t been on the gallerystock site for a while – they have really expanded the photog numbers – all top tier talent

often if you send anything else, it’ll be rejected. thus the need for the flickrs, craigslist, new portals, or unedited collections such as alamy.