Join the conversationon Joe Cornish – Reader’s Questions
These interviews and Q&A podcasts are not only very enjoyable in their own right (like listening to a radio discussion), but also excellent to listen to while scanning or post-processing images. Thanks Joe for introducing the two wildlife photographers you mentioned: they produce different but equally inspiring and unusual work. Adam [...]
- Adam Pierzchala, 22:12 11th Febon Put Your Questions to Hans Strand
Yes, medium format will have a tough future. Though there are still people (including myself) who think it is worth the extra cost to get an extra edge. The difference is more obvious when you make large prints. A one meter wide print from medium format will convince you about [...]
- Hans Strand, 20:37 1st Febon Samantha Gibbons
Hi Samantha, it was great to see your images and to read how you feel about photography! I like what you say, "how beautiful the landscape around us really is.. It’s almost religious", as I feel almost the same! Your vistas have this subtle but intriguing light but I also like [...]
- Beata Moore, 10:09 30th Jan
The tate of Stock and Rights Management
Have you ever considered placing your images with an image agency? Perhaps you have had work accepted by a library and are waiting for the money to start coming in. Or maybe you have already realised that the financial reward for your hard work, minus commission, comes to little more than a few pounds per photograph. Every photographer has at some stage pondered the advantages of being represented by an image library and many, including myself, have gone down this route as a means of bringing my work to a wider market.
Print 
PDF
Interesting article as I am in a similar position.
Recently, my first library PhotoLibrary was taken over by Getty Images. Getting a contract is not an easy task but I was being offered one on a plate. The problem was is that Getty want exclusive rights AND you are not allowed to market your own work. Bit of a pain really as PhotoLibrary did allow this.
What to do? I signed with Getty as I’ve found it helps when calling mags and signed with a couple of other libraries who DO allow self-marketing.
Name of the game. Just supply specific images to specific libraries.
Hello Jools,
If signing with Getty helps you sell other work for editorial use, then perhaps it was the best thing to do. It really depends on the amount of work you have available to sell, as if you are fortunate enough to have lots you can spread it around various agencies, which will help you reach more people. However, the idea of signing away the rights to my work is unacceptable, especially as the likely returns on each image are not good enough to justify exclusivity to this extent.
An interesting comparison would be to think about how much you would expect to be paid for the sale of an image’s copyright. While what you refer to does not mean the end of using your work in a commercial context, as you can get the rights back again in the future should you want to, it does mean that those images are locked into a unpredictable market where the returns are poor and getting worse.
Dear Fran,
Very insightful article. I was wondering what you think, as a professional photographer, about Getty signing up amateur photographers like me to stock their libraries? I received an email a few days ago inviting me to sign up to Getty (via my Flickr stream). I am sitting on it at the moment for just the reasons that you mention. The only serious sums (two figure!!) I get paid is from selling prints one to one to people who visit my website of flickr stream. There is a certain kudos to being signed to Getty but this is just perpetuating the low-cost cycle that makes life so difficult for the professionals.
All the best Wytchwood.
Hello Wytchwood,
I cannot blame amateurs from wanting to make their hobby pay to cover costs, however it is the opening up this side of the market that has reduced image sales to this parlous state. Image libraries have been extremely savvy in their response to the flood of imagery from non-professional sources, so I both recognise their cunning and deplore it.
I urge anyone presented with a contract to look at the terms and ask for advice if necessary, to see whether it’s worth the paper it is written on. While it is great to be associated with big name agencies kudos alone does not pay the bills. It is important to ask whether the deal is fair. You could even ask them to supply an estimated average sales forecast based on other contributors so that you could make a fair assessment, however I suspect this request would be looked upon unfavourably.
Hope you make the right choice. Fran
It’s not just the poor sods at the bottom of the heap. I have just heard that The Travel Library have gone under. I can’t help but think that there is so little money per photograph that you need millions of them to make a decent income. And that entails large overheads. I just don’t see how it is sustainable for anyone. So is stock photography doomed? Farmers survive selling their produce for less than its production value thanks to subsidies. Maybe we should write to the EU for a grant… What farmers are also doing once again, is selling locally. I am seeing more and more photographers set up their own library – it’s not that dear – but I am curious to know what the returns are considering the effort it must be to market it. Any ideas?
Charles
Charles,
There are few suggestions I can make. It strikes me that lots of small libraries of individual photographers would be far better served by a small agency led by a group of photographers. Someone just needs to come up with a viable business plan.
Excellent article, Fran. I like the idea of a photographer led co-operative.
Thanks Sam,
I have experience of working in co-operatives and they have both good and bad points. With the right structure and a fair division of labour by those in involved it would still leave enough time to produce work, hopefully. Just wish I had the time to think about it properly, however I am knee deep in a project so not much chance of that.
Good succinct summary, Fran. I can’t help wondering if the big library you refused to sign for is Getty? I had work with PhotoLibrary and when Getty took over I refused to sign for them. But I’m sure the majority have, and my refusal to sign will have less impact on Getty than a midge-bite on an elephant.
I’m still with Corbis but they take very little new work now, and returns per image with them seem to be lower now than Alamy. That’s not saying much; my average per sale with Alamy in the last 12 months is $69.32 before commission.
I certainly get more than that selling direct to clients, and don’t pay commission, but few if any of the Alamy sales are ones I’d ever have secured for myself.
All of my ex-PL, not-going-to-Getty images will be uploaded to Alamy when I get a few minutes.
I think the co-op idea could really be worth pursuing, is there a way to utilise some existing infrastructure rather than starting from scratch. PhotoShelter springs to mind maybe?
Very interesting Fran. Now 6 years into my full time business I have in fact done very little with library’s and kept wondering if I was missing something. Reading your article – perhaps not! I joined the Travel Library and that has worked out quite well with some satisfactory returns, but they’ve just gone into liquidation so that’s the end of that! Like others responding to this article I also had some work with Photo Library and have so far decided not to sign the Getty contract as it looks “unfavourable”. Back to square one it seems. My experience is that you can get far better returns from direct sales, although on one occasion a client later opted to buy one of my images from a library for a lesser fee!
I like the idea of a photographer led library. Just time needed by someone to set it up etc. Not much of that available.
I’ve toyed with a few libraries in the past and every few years keep feeling that I should make more effort to build up a healthy quantity. But the amount of work and lack of sales really tires with me quickly. I too have found direct licensing to be the best return, but I suppose the library’s is the first place people look for images. I also worry that if I enter seriously into the stock market that my image choices will be influenced by the market forces. I will look for saleable images, put people into them, go all high key and look for business men in shiny offices! (Ok, you can see why I’m worried!) But seriously, I don’t want to be influenced by that and if I tried to seriously make a living from stock I would d have to…
That said, I’m sure I will keep getting disappointed by selling my work for peanuts in the hope that the nut will grow and I can retire on into a life that I’m unaccustomed to! Ha, it’s not suppose to work like that! He he!
Hi Fran,
An excellent and thought prokoving piece. As with our previous discussions, you know my opinnion on micro-stock libraries such as iStock (also owned by Getty Images) and how they have driven the market for stock photography so low, that it is no longer a viable option for many photographers trying to scratch a living. The best description that I have seen so far of their business model is, ‘they sell your work for peanuts and cast you the shells’.
Of course, as with political and social issues, this situation has only arisen because we have allowed it to happen. The wealth NEVER trickles down!
The idea of a photographer driven/owned stock library is certainly the way forward. Prices wouldn’t need to be uncompetitive, just that the division of income would be greater in favour of the photographer, rather than driving profits for a company. A collective approach could work very well.
The major draw-back to setting up such a collective venture would be start up costs and the investment in the time needed to get it off the ground. It would need a pretty heavy duty website to search and display images via tags and keywords (maybe something like Photographer Direct’s model would be a good starting point), plus of course, many of us spend an increasing amount of time in earning a living.
If we can knock together some ideas and as you say, a business model, you could count me in. Once we have that, it is then a question of finding some funding for set up.
The collective idea is an excellent one, but when trying to market it you will come up against the business reality that you can get some fantastic images elsewhere for next to nothing. The only way you’re going to get it working is to only let the very best work in and make it exclusive. Let’s say if you had a maximum of 100 photographers and only the very best ones, this would of course limited your market and the vicious circle begins…that said, I do like the idea of a professional rate for the images and the collective sharing out the profits, instead of a faceless business middle man…
I like the idea of a library cooperative or at the very least an umbrella website to link to individual libraries. I’ve looked at the business reality of setting up an online library in quite some detail. The big cost is getting at least 5,000 images online (minimum size of a library). It takes time to QC and upload: at a rate of 5min per image, a salaried person will manage about 1,700 images per month (on average, inc holidays). For the actual library, there are library solutions straight out of the box which aren’t too dear although they will be hard to adapt to our case. A custom build will be anything from 10 to 40 grand. Then there’s the marketing bill: it takes time, phone bills and fuel. A cooperative could drastically reduce all labour expenses. It will require a lot of commitment throughout and possibly a disciplinary panel / lead committee. You’ll then need staff to field the requests of customers once they come in. These are mere nut and bolts, however, as TTL’s demise has shown, it’s not trivial, and they’re a good example as they based their business model on quality and service.
However for me, as Jason Theaker and others have intimated, the main issue is convincing the image buyers to cough up enough money to cover production costs. This reminds me of the Fair Trade programme:
“Fairtrade is about better prices, decent working conditions, local sustainability, and fair terms of trade for farmers and workers in the developing world. By requiring companies to pay sustainable prices (which must never fall lower than the market price), Fairtrade addresses the injustices of conventional trade, which traditionally discriminates against the poorest, weakest producers. It enables them to improve their position and have more control over their lives.” I know we’re neither farmers nor in the developing world, but the core theme is the same. It’ll require a lot of PR to succeed but maybe as a cooperative, combined with group action and the backing of lobby groups (BFP?), there’s a slim chance of an improvement. However, it’ll take a lot of photographers risking zero income from libraries for it to succeed – and I am sure there are plenty who do well out of them. I’m happy to take part and provide experience if anyone wants it.
Regards,
Charles
Hi Charles and Jason,
Thanks for your comments. Of course, I don’t think that anyone imagines that setting up such a project would be easy, cheap or land fully formed and functioning straight away. Yes, it would run up against the corporate machine but does that mean we shouldn’t try?
Personally, I feel that exclusivity would be incompatible with the aims of a collective. Quality control is of course essential but exclusivity would defeat the aims of the project before it had begun. Something akin to the Fairtrade approach would be much better. I feel that not only would it be an image library but also a grass-roots movement against corporate control of the market.
Such a project would of course take a long time to gather momentum and there are no guarantees of success. It would need to start small and within the means available. All ventures are a risk. Charles, your practical experience would prove invaluable in any such venture.
There will always be clients who’s only concern is to get images at the lowest cost possible. That part of the market always has and alway will be there. However, I suspect that that would not be the market that such a venture would be aimed at.
Please keep your ideas and comments coming folks.
I must say I despise how the whole image market has evolved, but I think it has been driven even by the cheap availability of photographic tools these days. Even the latest mobile phones are capable of delivering decent qualifying stock images and photography as an art form has become completely devalued. I dumped an agency recently because the values being paid meant I too would also rather withold my images from the mass market and maintain exclusivity and save myself the aggravation of trying to second guess what tiny gaps in the market for images there are…
Very interesting article Fran. I’m one of those amateurs who started submitting work to Alamy about a year and a half ago under the banner of not needing the money but happy to make the occasional sale to pay for petrol to make more photos or to but a new piece of kit. In that light I suspect I’m probably one of the group that represents part of the problem for those who are trying to make a living from this vocation.
That said, like Wytchwood I probably make more annually (or at least as much) from people finding my website and ordering prints (amazing considering I do almost nothing for SEO) or by finding my stuff in Flickr. Now if I could only figure a way to live off $1000-$1500 a year I’d be well ready to quit my day job. I deliberately turned down the offer from Getty to license my Flickr stuff through them as I am not interested in their exclusivity demands and prefer the Alamy model (and percentage I might add). I wonder if people offering their images through Getty get better SEO via Flickr than we who have opted out?
Seriously more power to you folks if you can achieve the photography coop but I’m personally skeptical that it could really stop the flood of imagery that is saturating the markets. I’d think you might end up with a photolibrary whose prices don’t fit the current supply and demand climate and editors would simply continue to go elsewhere – like to Flickr or to the ever growing number of amatuer photography sites “Welcome to Photography”. Then you’d find yourself in the same predicament as the other stock sites and have to start aligning your prices to fit the market.
As Russ points out, the ready availability of sophisticated digital cameras out there hasn’t necessarily resulted in a huge increase in “great” photographers. Consistently great is the domain of the artist like Mr Cornish and Mr Ward. However, I assert that it has allowed lots of people to achieve a standard of consistently good, occasionally great. Thus the entrance of the hundreds and hundreds of amateurs (like me) content to sell a handful or two of royalty free images a year but who don’t count on the income stream. I do draw the line at giving away images for free as some editors have requested recently. Several recent inquiries have offered nothing more than a photo credit and I’ve politely declined. Actually, I politely quoted a fee comparable to Alamy for the size and use requested and never heard back. I’m sure they found something more within their budget over on Flickr.
Hi Fran
“So why do photographers let libraries market their images under such adverse terms?” I suspect that few of us professionals do sign up for such poor deals with libraries, the problem is that libraries no longer need professional photographers imagery when it’s so easy to get hold of work from amateurs who are simply out to cover costs and enjoy the exposure.
“Only by saying ‘no thanks’ to unreasonable contracts can the cycle be broken.” This is the right thing to do but we have to be prepared to walk away from that part of our business because, for the same reasons, the libraries won’t actually care. Many amateur photographers are producing good quality work in their spare time and this can provide a good pocket money income stream. The libraries know that this will never change and I suspect this is why they are squeezing professionals out of the market.
Hello All,
Just catching up with the interesting comments as I’ve been out of reach in Scotland. I am pleased that the article has helped spur on the debate.
Certainly I have my reservations about taking on the work load of setting a co-operative business, I have been part of a workers co-op before and although it was supposed to be part time it ended up taking over my life! However, this said I would not like to give up on the idea.
There is certainly something in the fact that a collective with no shareholders to pay and with the careful management of overheads by appropriate division of labour and creative low-cost marketing, could provide images at a reasonably competitive rate.
It’s good to know there is some support out there but it would take an impressive effort to get the idea off the ground. If there was a broad enough base of photographers who would bring their own clients with them, so to speak, then there would be at least an initial pool to sell to perhaps?
Lots to consider.
There’s value in considering a managed library such as Trevillion Images where the fees received are a million miles away from the pseudo-microstock (for want of a better expression) of Alamy and the 80% cut of the Flickr/Getty model. The price for exclusivity, in terms of not being able to licence out the same or similar images, is small in return for the decent sale figures.
A really interesting article.
I was recently asked by a former Art student of mine, whether Photography was dead?. She was writing an essay for University and had been posed the question.
It got me thinking that Photography had never been so popular and creatively you could argue that it has been for the better that people are looking at the world in a more sensitive way.
The cost of this is the volume of increasing better quality images created by people without the desire or means to be professional. I think that much is known. It was interesting to hear the Jack Dykinga interview in this issue and his thoughts about the future. With ipads and the like already upon us, the need for still images might soon decline as video capable devices flood the mass market. Within 5 years, the moving image may be the image of choice, and Jack’s thoughts about time lapse and other moving images becomes quite a likely option for many.
As for a co-op of photographers, it is a fantastic idea, but like others I would be surprised if it were ever able to compete with the hoards of photographers willing to sell their images for very little or even give them away. I am sure the quality would be far superior in a co-op, but in terms of mass sales, I don’t think it could compete financially. I might add that this is purely a gut reaction, as I am neither a business man or a Pro photographer! I have made next to nothing with my few images in stock libraries, have sold virtually no prints via flickr or my website, and continue to make any small amounts of money through running small group and 1 to 1 workshops. It is a far nicer way to make money, and I keep 100%, meet great people, and get into the open air
I would definitely support a co-op and would love it to succeed. The Fair Trade description really suited the Photographers plight I thought. It would need a whole new model, some sort of Photographers Auction site?
One last thing, a friend of mine set up his own business selling art work to design agencies. He has various disciplines covered, from glass blowing, paintings and sculptures, to prints, drawings and photographs. He sells bespoke work to agencies, seeking his personal design judgement for a given situation. His network of artists take a 50% share of the sale price. The agencies like the personal touch and the artist gets a nicer cut. It could be businesses such as Banks wanting wall sized prints, to luxury yachts being decorated, to a housing project requiring hundreds of pieces. I liked the way it worked and could offer a better solution on a bigger scale. For what it is worth.
I realise I’m swimming against the tide here, but I’m reasonably pleased with my library income, maybe it’s the subject matter?
I supply architectural, which is about 15% of my library income, but the lion’s share comes from shots illustrating economic growth in emerging markets (which is a spin-off from my “real” job). There’s an insatiable appetite for shots of the rising middle classes of Brazil, Russia, India, and China doing their weekly shopping…I kid you not!
I wonder if the consensus on this thread is based predominantly around landscape and related subjects? I know a few other photographers who are reasonably content with library earnings, but they all seem to be specialising like me in fairly esoteric (and often crushingly banal) subjects.
I think the main slant of the discussion was landscape photography – there is still money to be made from niche photography as long as you know what to take and then where and how to sell it (presumably your ‘real job’ informs you of some of this?).
Custard,
I am sure you are right. I have done architectural commissions, which I have found to be reasonably well paid, and supplied building and location shots to libraries, which have always sold. In the latter case however, the prices paid per image are nothing to get excited about. No more, or no less, than is paid for landscape images used in a similar context.
The main original point of my article was bemoaning the fact that the prices paid for landscape imagery, for which there is a still a healthy, if saturated market, is not sufficient to cover the costs and effort put into making the shots in the first place.
Taking architecture as an example, I shot a whole series of images of Sheffield over two days at a nice leisurely pace and the shots have sold well and cost very little to produce. Compare this to excursion I have just returned from, a four-day, 600 mile round trip to Snowdonia, where I would have been happy to just get one photograph of Snowdon itself. Only, I have nothing to show for it, not having got the camera out once. The methods of production are just not comparable and sale prices do not reflect this.
Arguably I could spend more time, if not all my time, photographing more saleable or even ‘crushingly banal’ subjects, however, that was not why I got into professional photography in the first place. Maybe this is the fundamental problem. In my experience landscape photographers tend to be artists first and business people second!