Comments on: Two Stock Photographers Respond to Getty’s Licensing Model

By: Kenneth

Kenneth — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 08:18:48 +0000

I have been shooting major sports for four years for a weekly and have tons of stock ex. just about every tennis player in the world but don’t have a clue how to sell them. If anyone has an idea how to sell these or where I can sell my photos after I shoot them. What is a fair price for a photo. I have received 35 t0 75 for one photo confused what is fair price for photo I have a photo shelter sight and would like some info on how to market photos on site. I have blog and put photos on it is that a bad idea.

By: David Zanzinger

David Zanzinger — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 12:10:23 +0000

Great article…..sounds like “How the Stock Photography business ate itself” The playing field for photography is evening out with social media in the mix and photoshelter is helping to be more independent.
Looking forward to a great 2013…

By: Jonathan Ross

Jonathan Ross — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:17:05 +0000

I think what Shannon had to say is very close to any crystal ball around. To think that anyone has the answer to where the future of imagery is heading is a bit of a dream at this transition in our development of advertising and media. That said I would have to say that Shannon’s words ring very clearly for me and my future as a stock agency owner and a stock photographer.
My biggest concern is the back end for agencies is getting less expensive so why are the royalty rates changing in their favor? The big agencies at this time with our technological magic can get an image out to it’s buyers at a fraction of the cost compared to when they offered higher royalties to photographers and it cost them a lot more to get the image to client ( analog days ). This to me speaks of nothing but control and letting the fish fight for the food that is available. This is a thought out decision and direction the big agencies are making so you have to ask yourself why?
If an agency is not offering a 50/50 split I think it is time for them to reassess their decision. By offering a higher percentage photographers would be able to create much stronger content and a broader choice for the agencies to pick through, I see this as a win/win. Thank you both for your input.
Cheers, Jonathan Ross

By: Jay Mitchell

Jay Mitchell — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:48:47 +0000

This article is unrealistic on many counts but i shall deal with a couple of the glaringly obvious ones:
- Protecting Images or putting them out there on the internet (share but protect them with a watermark) so this way you do not have to worry whose hands they are in after all, right click and copy image is very easy and most images are rarely seen when used unless on a massive scale (so a London shot used in New York paper would not be seen by the photographer unless by chance).

- Joining many of the stock sites they (like iTunes) ask you to have a US Tax number which is purposeless if outside the States and not required and yet this is not mentioned above as a huge stumbling block

- Finally …so many photographers out there now so less chance of selling multiple images on a stock site to pay the bills, better to set-up your own website which is easy and cost effective and will attract people to your work rather than to thousands of photographers work, just PR on all the social networks and allow free use for PR use in magazines and other publications.

By: Two Stock Photographers Respond to Getty’s Licensing Model ‹ PhotoShelter Blog | Steve Troletti Photography and Environmental News

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 07:49:04 +0000

[...] on Scoop.it – Steve Troletti Nature and Wildlife PhotographerSee on blog.photoshelter.com Share This Page: This entry was posted in News and tagged Draft, maire, Mayor, Montreal, [...]

By: Daniel J. Cox

Daniel J. Cox — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:35:13 +0000

I’m very curious if Shannon could provide us with that,

“metric recently provided in an analysis report which said that any stock photo agency that gave more than 50% to their supply base of photographers was, over time, going to go out of business.”

I just don’t believe it. Nothing computerized, which is what agencies are today, is more expensive than what and how they used to market in the past. I’m old enough to remember when Agents used to publish huge, lavish four color catalogs. Now those were expensive! As the internet came online and virtually all promotions went electronic, costs went down. I know they did for me when marketing my work directly. Before the internet I had several agents who payed me 60%. Now Getty gives us 30%. With Getty I even have to pick a Home Territory. WTH? Why is there a need for a Home Territory when marketing via the internet? For one reason only, it gives them a larger percentage.

I love PhotoShelters ability to market directly. Look at what’s happening to the Music and Publishing industry due to ITunes and other means of electronic delivery. Music companies and publishing houses are middle men, JUST LIKE STOCK AGENCIES. When we’re able to market more fluidly, directly ourselves, the meddle men go away. Bye bye and good residence. The sooner the better in my opinion. We just need to continue to support the companies that give us the tools to do it ourselves and in this case it is PhotoShelter.