A guy where my wife works has a good sideline taking stock photos but I don't have access to him to ask directly. :)
Apparently you put the photos up on a stock photo site and they send you the royalties. If anyone knows about this stuff what agency would you recommend? I have a half-decent camera (Nikon D3400) for starters.
Anyway just after some general information from anyone who might work in that arena.
(Not after Tax advice. :) )
Cheers
I have on shutterstock and photodune. You don't get royalties, you get a cut everytime a photo of yours gets sold. Nothing monthly. TBH, Nikon D3400 is a very basic camera. The better the photos are, the higher the chance of your photos being sold.You also don't need to just use one, you can also signup to istockphoto, shutterstock, dreamstime, photodune etc.. each one have their own eligibility criteria and payouts.
You don't get royalties, you get a cut everytime a photo of yours gets sold.
Isn't that what royalties are? Payment made each time an item is used or sold?
As described by the Cambridge dictionery "a payment made to writers, people who have invented things, owners of property, etc. every time their books, devices, land, etc. are bought or used by others"
Mirriam-Webster "a payment to an author or composer for each copy of a work sold or to an inventor for each item sold under a patent"
The monthly payment would just be an accumulation of payments, or where a service made a deal for x amount/unlimited uses.
Any dSLR in the right hands can produce great results worthy of being a stock image.
Any dSLR in the wrong hands will look shite.
Deposit photos, Alamy? (their image prices are high for users).
A guy where my wife works has a good sideline taking stock photos
Have you tried taking photos of your wife and selling them as NFT?
https://opensea.io/assets/0x495f947276749ce646f68ac8c2484200…
Art speaks to the buyer. I like how Olga has been able to capture Lisa's 😁.
I see people giving away really good photos on Pexels and pxhere, I don't understand how anyone can make serious money when people are giving away good work for free.
The works are free for private use but subject to IP for commercial purposes.
I think for pexels and pxhere they are allowed for commercial use even without attribution.
It doesn't matter what the site's t&c says.
IP belongs to the CR holder.
How Long Does Copyright Protection Last?
How long does a copyright last?
The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1, Copyright Basics.
@rektrading: Pexels images appears to be licensed under something like CC0, where they are free to use or modify even for commercial purposes.
https://www.pexels.com/license/
Pxhere has the same dealio. They are free for personal use, and are free for commercial use. The same copyright protections under law would be provided to the artist whether your use is personal or commercial. It looks like some images on pexels are cc0
Although the pexels license and cc0 seem almost interchangeable. cc0 means "no rights reserved", it's a way for artists to voluntarily waive their copyright. Pexels own license seems to be their own version of cc0.
@AustriaBargain: It's up to the user to decide if they should believe the site's t&c or the Copyright Act.
CC0's disclaimer says that users can still get rekt.
In no way are the patent or trademark rights of any person affected by CC0, nor are the rights that other persons may have in the work or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the person who associated a work with this deed makes no warranties about the work, and disclaims liability for all uses of the work, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law.
When using or citing the work, you should not imply endorsement by the author or the affirmer.
https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
@rektrading: That's the case no matter what though. You can't take a photo of the McDonald's logo and claim you own the copyright to that logo. You can't take a photo of Kanye West and use it to imply that Kanye endorses cock fighting or whatever.
@rektrading: Who owns the IP and how a non owner can use that IP are different issues
I can own the IP and grant a licence to someone to use it for commercial purposes
If I upload a photo to a site that expressly allows for a particular licence to be granted to users, then I am granting that licence to the users when they download the photo
That doesnt change the fact that I still own the IP.
Sometimes photos on paid sites like Shutterstock and Getty Images are better than the ones on Pexels and Unsplash depending on what you are after.
I find that they aren't better, but that they have a lot more options. If you need a video of someone in a Santa suit handing out gifts then Pexels may have one set of videos like that, but paid stock image sites might have dozens of choices.
Yes that’s sort of what I meant, if you need something specific Pexels or Unsplash might have one or two photos that don’t really capture what you need but paid sites will likely have it.
Primitive NFTs?
Generally I've found with stock it's a saturated market so you need to think outside the box if you want to make any sales.
For example, you'll be lucky to make a sale on a photo of the Sydney Opera House but if you were to only take photos of new trends (e.g. coronavirus, working from home, Ukraine/Russia, etc) you'll have more success.
Thanks all! :)
That's a really nice pen, you must be a really good writer.
The camera doesn't mean anything.
A lot of publishers use stock photos for their book covers, so if you photographed one object against a plain/isolated background, it would be easier to use your photo as it would a lot easier for the designer to cut out the object than if you have a lot of other things right next to the main object. Eg, one flower instead of 2-3 flowers crowded next to each other.
That's a really nice pen, you must be a really good writer.
The camera doesn't mean anything.
I agree to a certain point that it's the person behind the pen/camera that makes a good article/poem/image.
But when it comes to photography if you take the same composition with professional quality equipment you will have a much higher quality image.
It's not that the camera doesn't mean anything, it's that the ability of the person is the basis of it being a good image. The quality of the equipment then can turn it into an even better image that is more easily marketable.
Agreed, the analogy would be better as
That's a really nice pen, you must be a really good caligrapher.
Yes you can take good photos without the best equipment. It's as much of an art as painting or drawing so the person doing it is important. However, a painter picks the right tools (paintbrush, oils/pastels, canvas/paper) to make his art look just right. A photograper does the same. And I'm not talking about instagram filters
There is a difference between an aesthetically good photo and a technically good one.
The skill of the photographer will be enhanced by the quality of the gear and his ability to utilise it.
If I have a Nikon D3400 with a kit lens and a Nikon Z 9 with an f/2.8 I know which one will result in the better image, all other things being equal.
Keep in mind also that income from a stock photo, in most cases, is paid in cents not dollars. You need to be very committed to keeping an ongoing supply of them to keep your numbers of available images high enough to maintain visibilty.
Either specialise in a particular style of image or go for as wide a range as possible.
A good friend concentrates on wildlife photography and is pulling in the princely sum of ~$15 per month.
He sees it as a way of having his photos judged by independent individuals rather than his friends and family who may just tell him what they think he wants to hear.
Hey! A question on OzB that I can actually answer!
So long story short, I'm a creative in a corporate firm in Aus. I am a contributor for Getty on the side.
Becoming a contributor on Getty was a fantastic move for me. it's really fun and it's made me do different kinds of creative work that has greatly improved my skills in ways that wouldn't be achieved in corporate creative work.
However, let me get this out of the way first and foremost: being a stock contributor is NOT a way to make a living for most people. I make a living with my day job, and get a small boost in money every year through getty.
I started in mid 2019. I probably spent in the vicinity of 100 - 200 hours in my first year of getty, taking worthy photos, while not making a single sale for the first 4 months. After my first sale, things were slow.
I went pretty hard for 2019 and early 2020 taking lots and lots of photos wherever I went. On holidays, travelling for work, around my home city, etc etc. I have about 400 images and 400 videos on Getty and I make anywhere between $150 - 500 USD per month. I currently average around $400 USD per month in royalties.
I don't even interact with people or actors. I take mostly general photos and video of things that I see in demand in corporate: photos of the world, industry, cityscape shots, cities in change, climate change, and top-class photos of holiday locations for the tourism sector. Sometimes I just take photos of nice interesting things I see and throw it on Getty to see if it'll sell. Sometimes it does.
COVID and the multiple Melbourne lockdowns killed my motivation, so I haven't taken any photos for Getty for basically 18 months now but 3 years in and my sales have continually grown. I made round $7500 USD in the 2 1/2 years from my first sale.
I have a Sony a6500 and a Mavic 2 Pro.
TL;DR, from an hourly POV it's difficult to justify it as a financial investment but stock imagery is a wonderful way to inspire you to get better at your craft and make a bit of money on the side.
Let me know any questions you have :)
Thanks.
Yrs I have a site on fineartamerica, I have made sales, and there are many others. Copy and paste your keywords so you dont have to repeat. Keywords are the key. Go on all the sites