• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Selling Photos (1 Viewer)

C

CORVUS1

CORVUS1
Hello.

I have recently taken some photos that I have been told are good enough for publication, but I have no idea where to start. Is there a photo bank somewhere that publishers go through or do I have to find an agency to sign up to ??
Any help in the matter will be greatly apreciated. Thanks.

Paul
 
Paul,


There are numerous large and small photo agencies, which will accept images for their different categories, you should get a usage fee, and it will not be a large amount of money. The larger libraries will take over your copyright so beware, but you get better fees.

If you’re selling to a third party for publication again your copyright will become an issue, you should make it clear from the start your terms of contract. Usage, credits and sole ownership will become important.

If your happy just to see your stuff in print, then none of the above applies, but, if you give any written carte-blanc consent to any party to use your images, you have no come back at them for miss-use.
 
pe'rigin said:
Paul,


There are numerous large and small photo agencies, which will accept images for their different categories, you should get a usage fee, and it will not be a large amount of money. The larger libraries will take over your copyright so beware, but you get better fees.

If you’re selling to a third party for publication again your copyright will become an issue, you should make it clear from the start your terms of contract. Usage, credits and sole ownership will become important.

If your happy just to see your stuff in print, then none of the above applies, but, if you give any written carte-blanc consent to any party to use your images, you have no come back at them for miss-use.
Click to expand...

Please note, copyright should not be an issue with most professional and legitimate photo agencies and publishers and will not be taken from you, all copyright rights belong to the photographer and should never be given away. If the place where you are hoping to use your photo's asks for your copyright, tell them to get stuffed and go elswhere. Having said that, some of the photo storage and presentation web pages such as Flckr are being ripped off by unscrupulous companies stealing images for advertising etc, they don't care about copyright even though it usually states somewhere in the FAQS that copyright belongs to the photographer! Beware where you upload your prize pictures or be prepared to be ripped off!!! Another recent trend is stealing part of a photo to add to a growing market where composite images are made from various sections of different photos. These sections could be a tree, a cloud formation, a river etc, etc. The owners of the photographs are not even aware that their original images have been plundered, could you tell if the photo you were looking at contained a little piece of one of your photo's?

nirofo.
 
Yeah, if you really have any intention of making money from a photo, do not ever post it anywhere in any form that's more detailed than a thumbnail. Most people and businesses respect copyright but as my fourth grade teacher used to say over and over, "A few people spoil things for everyone."

Most of us taking bird photos and such do it eyes wide open realizing we are not in it for the money. If anyone asks to use our photos for free with photo credit only, we generally say, "Sure," unless the intended use is clearly something we don't feel comfortable with. There are so many good photos and good photographers in this world now, the whole realm of "professional photography" has to be redefined, much to the dismay of professional photographers.

That said, you might check out some of the new online photo stock sites such as istockphoto.com. You post your photos there and users pay a tiny fee to use them. Generally, nature photos are not what they are after--they want corporate-type people shots and such. But you still might look into this, as setting up to "do business" in this way is pretty easy.
 
Doug Greenberg said:
That said, you might check out some of the new online photo stock sites such as istockphoto.com. You post your photos there and users pay a tiny fee to use them. Generally, nature photos are not what they are after--they want corporate-type people shots and such. But you still might look into this, as setting up to "do business" in this way is pretty easy.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that any Nature/Wildlife photographer could even cover the cost of their internet connection soley 'selling' their images to a microstock library let alone "do business" that way. Most would struggle to cover their costs solely selling through traditional stock agencies in the current market.

Putting aside the issue of royalty free, most of the microstock libraries sell the images cheap and usually give the photographers around 20%...so, as well as virtually giving away the images they are paying the photographer around a third of what the traditional stock agencies do.

Who wins? The designers do a little but mainly it is the agencies...

Can a photographer make a living with it? Yes...for example the very talented Russsian photographer Konstantin Sutyagin (http://www.cool-photos.com/) but he is shooting original ideas and concepts all day, every day. Think about how many new photographs that he has to load to the libraries every day to make any money?

If your bird images are just sitting on your hard drive I think you are financially better off leaving them there than using bandwidth to upload them to a microstock...oh, and think about whether it is worth the extra effort on your tax return if you sell anything ;)
 
Last edited:
I think Mark has hit on a good point.

Being different from the rest of the competition.

Doug is correct as well about the demise of 'true professional photography'. It has become a 'cheap as chips profession'. With everybody now being an expert. Sadly, that statement is far from the truth judging by the standards we see.

We still pay high fees to a few photographers from around the World and UK, but their work stands out and is exceptional.

Just to go back to copyright issue, we control their copyright, if they don’t agree to sign all rights to us, then we don’t commission them.

That’s why I think that if you are selling any of your images for publishing, you state from the start your terms and conditions and negotiate thereon.
 
Just to go back to copyright issue, we control their copyright, if they don’t agree to sign all rights to us, then we don’t commission them.
Click to expand...

Isnt that more like 'work for hire'? ie. you're paying for the photographer's time and expertise in producing a product for you, which you own (similar to bespoke joinery!) I was under the same impression as Nirofo, that most agencies acted as sales agents in effect, taking a comission for providing a service to the photographer, who retains ownership of the product for sale.
 
Gordon,

You’re right in many of your comments, and 15 years ago people clung on to their copyright religiously. But, unfortunately times have changed; we have to do it to cover ourselves, basically, because clients now insist on full rights to images, illustrations and design. We can’t afford to be caught in a copyright row with our clients and suppliers so we take the necessary precautions.

If we look at the London 2012 Olympics logo design, some people may think that it was expensive (apart from being appallingly designed), but the agency has given that design to countless other suppliers for their use. As I said 15 years ago they would have controlled most of the following production themselves making a lot more money.
 
pe'rigin said:
Doug is correct as well about the demise of 'true professional photography'. It has become a 'cheap as chips profession'. With everybody now being an expert. Sadly, that statement is far from the truth judging by the standards we see.
Click to expand...

Everyone does seem to be an expert, and even amateurs use some very expensive gear. But are there really a lot more good photographers about? Most images I see suffer from poor composition, low sharpness, poor lighting, and over-saturation (saturation slider turned up to 11?). Surely the demand has also gone up due to the increased interest in nature etc?

The big name US wildlife photographers all seem to be doing photo excursions, and charging top whack. Presumably it makes more money than shooting.
 
What Leif says is exactly right, i.e., that the way the best pro photographers are increasingly making their living is through their function as leaders and educators, giving workshops, leading tours, etc.

I'll add that although there are a lot more mediocre photographers about, there also are, truly, a lot more excellent ones, as well. Partly this is merely a phenomenon of sheer numbers, but it's also that the revolution in digital photo gear has made getting excellent
images easier---for everyone.
 
Is it not just the increased exposure of photographs through the internet? 10 years ago, how would many people here on BF shared their prints and slides? Nowhere near as many would have stood up and given slideshows at clubs etc.

So we see more photographs and photographers who we would never have known existed through the internet. Guess what - we now see the bad and ugly with the good. It doesn't mean that standards are falling - we are just being exposed to more of the average to poor images.

Another benefit is that as well as seeing what is possible through other's images, the internet allows people to get feedback on their own from a large and diverse audience - not just their family and friends. This enables those that want to learn to improve to do so much easier and cheaper than before. That is not to mention the discussion that goes on about gear and technique.

Yes, digital photo gear has helped enable this but I don't think it really turns a 'snapper' into someone producing great images. Did buying the latest Canon 1D turn them into Arthur Morris or John Shaw? Yes, they now have the tools to create technically high quality images...but that doesn't make them good photographs.
 
mw_aurora said:
Is it not just the increased exposure of photographs through the internet? 10 years ago, how would many people here on BF shared their prints and slides? Nowhere near as many would have stood up and given slideshows at clubs etc.

So we see more photographs and photographers who we would never have known existed through the internet. Guess what - we now see the bad and ugly with the good. It doesn't mean that standards are falling - we are just being exposed to more of the average to poor images.

Another benefit is that as well as seeing what is possible through other's images, the internet allows people to get feedback on their own from a large and diverse audience - not just their family and friends. This enables those that want to learn to improve to do so much easier and cheaper than before. That is not to mention the discussion that goes on about gear and technique.

Yes, digital photo gear has helped enable this but I don't think it really turns a 'snapper' into someone producing great images. Did buying the latest Canon 1D turn them into Arthur Morris or John Shaw? Yes, they now have the tools to create technically high quality images...but that doesn't make them good photographs.
Click to expand...

I was not suggesting that standards are falling, and I think I agree with you that they are increasing. There are some quite superb images out there.

I know from my experience that it is easier to take decent pictures using a DSLR compared to film, for many reasons, including lack of reciprocity failure and a greater dynamic range.

I think both John Shaw and Arthur Morris started out as teachers, taking photos as a hobby, before turning pro.
 
Leif said:
I know from my experience that it is easier to take decent pictures using a DSLR compared to film, for many reasons, including lack of reciprocity failure and a greater dynamic range.

I think both John Shaw and Arthur Morris started out as teachers, taking photos as a hobby, before turning pro.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is easier to nail the technical aspects of a photograph and that digital is opening up greater creative options with the camera, I didn't mean otherwise. I was rallying against a strange belief that picking up a top end digital SLR will turn someone who takes 'snaps' into someone who can create great images overnight. I know this from my experience ;)
 
I agree that it is easier to nail the technical aspects of a photograph and that digital is opening up greater creative options with the camera, I didn't mean otherwise. I was rallying against a strange belief that picking up a top end digital SLR will turn someone who takes 'snaps' into someone who can create great images overnight.
Click to expand...

If anything it works the other way - top end dslrs do a lot less of the decision making for you, so the output really is down to you in a way that less flexible, more automated cameras dont allow. And large sensors capable of excellent detail resolution leave fewer places to hide mistakes as well!(Obviously, there are always the manual and semi-auto modes of other dslrs, but those picture modes are just so convenient;) )

I know this from my experience ;)
Click to expand...
Dont do yourself down Mark; you're living over the pond now, they dont do self-deprecation;)
 
gordon g said:
Dont do yourself down Mark; you're living over the pond now, they dont do self-deprecation;)
Click to expand...

LOL, you haven't seen some of my 'bird photos' from 10 years ago...I obviously still blame the inferior camera, lens and film I was using ;)
 
Have you thought about printing the photos yourself or using a lab, mount them, sign and number them so they look like limited editions, then sell them at car boot sales. You could probably charge a £10 for a 10x8 print.
 
Interesting. I have to admit I'd never really thought of that. I'd be interested to hear if anyone does this regularly and has any tips.

I'm guessing that to do this though you'd need Puffins, Red Kites and Barn Owls really. I don't suppose my Stock Doves will go down so well.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

M
35mm film vs digital
Replies
14
Views
854
Ignatius
Ignatius
Tiraya
Workaround to fixing the scale reflection in moths?
Replies
4
Views
711
Richard D
Richard D
S
Photographic equipment for rainforest trip
Replies
18
Views
2K
vupham
vupham
P
Help with ID please
Replies
1
Views
398
Butty
B
M
Zimbabwe Photos/ID Help
Replies
0
Views
279
masonflint
M

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top