Re:Selling photos via stock agencies like Shutterstock

View: New views
3 Messages — Rating Filter:   Alert me  

Re:Selling photos via stock agencies like Shutterstock

by jamievoetsch :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Hi Mary Ann,
 
Shutterstock charges the same fee for everyone. The fees are listed on their home page:
 
http://www.shutterstock.com/
 
I'm noticing iStock and ShutterStock EVERYWHERE, even in fancy magazines. Whether we like it or not, when someone finds the perfect image they are looking for, they will pay a dollar for it or they will pay thousands. Since the industry is so competitive, many customers are indeed finding what they want and need for only a few bucks.
 
Jamie Voetsch
http://www.imageenvision.com/


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re:Selling photos via stock agencies like Shutterstock

by Fred-43 :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

While can't know what a particular buyer paid we can find out what they
should have paid. Here are the terms of a standard RF license from
Shutterstock. Read "Part 1 - Limited License":

http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml

There are limitations and at that point you are expected to pay more.
Remember, this is only for Shutterstock but most of the micro's are
going this direction and are taking these distinctions more seriously.

Fred Voetsch
Acclaim Images
http://www.acclaimimages.com/


Re: Re:Selling photos via stock agencies like Shutterstock

by Michael Vitti :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View Threaded | Show Only this Message

Hey,

Taking a look at microstock from the other view:  the buyer/user.

I am a graphics artist and photographer in this receding stock  
industry (my own images are no longer with JupiterMedia, finally!).

Last week, I was called into a client agency to work on an essence  
reel.  This is a montage or short segment that is used inside a PPT  
deck in some presentation.  It's like an animatic (animation of scans,  
texted) or ripomatic (montage of clips) in that it is rough and has a  
very limited audience to support the pitch.  The producer pulled in  
his assistant, and this assistant was able to find stills that were  
microstock or free to use (don't know what criteria they used, perhaps  
if it isn't ©, it's available) and files large enough for this  
project.  I don't know if he was using Flikr, Wikipedia or any other  
creative commons ascribed sources.  This project was standard def  
(640x480) which is pretty small, but you generally need images that  
are 1MB or larger.

My point here is, stock photo agencies and photogs tend to give away  
this use most of the time (usually considered comps) in that the  
imagery may be used in a more commercial (billable) sense.  Is there a  
precedent in music or theater that not protectionist (like the RIAA)?  
Do we need to educate incoming photographer that (file) size matters,  
that they can do better (ie, make some money) if they are a little  
more savvy to the marketplace?


yours,




On Jun 26, 2008, at 9:28 PM, Fred wrote:

> While can't know what a particular buyer paid we can find out what  
> they
> should have paid. Here are the terms of a standard RF license from
> Shutterstock. Read "Part 1 - Limited License":
>
> http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml
>
> There are limitations and at that point you are expected to pay more.
> Remember, this is only for Shutterstock but most of the micro's are
> going this direction and are taking these distinctions more seriously.



Michael Vitti
   VittiPhoto Productions, NYC
     stills + motion + motion graphics = visual storytelling

    646-327-3662
     http://www.vittiphotoproductions.com
     michael -at- vittiphoto -dot- com






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

LightInTheBox - Buy quality products at wholesale price