Selling photos online... official MoneySavingExpert.com discussion

darich

LittleCharlie wrote: »

I know this goes against the grain a little, but I'm rather disappointed in this thread. Selling photographs is a highly professional trade, and shouldn't be treated as a get rich quick scheme.

People here are asking if they can get away with selling small compact camera photographs etc, or if they can scrape by with XYZ.

It's an incredibly complicated business, and you're likely to get into serious trouble if you don't know your way around contracts, licensing, copyrights etc like the back of your hand. Not to mention knowing the ins and outs of what you can and cannot sell for different purposes and usages.

Anyone selling through sites such as photographers direct or similar should first consult a specialist media lawyer and ask them to draw up basic contracts for their business dealing with the hows, what's and why's of the license they wish to offer. At the very least they should look at the association of photographers website and spend a very long time reading the sample contracts and then writing their own.

Just as a base figure too, you need around 10,000 pictures to make an average of about £600 per month. People with twenty or thirty pictures are going to see pennies. Sites such as the microstocks rely on thousands of photographers signing up and never, ever making their first payout. This is one of the ways that they make money.

I don't mean to sound like a downer, but this is my livelihood, and in April will be my ONLY income. And when I see snap shots being touted as a professional product, it makes me want to scream inside. It's no wonder that so many friends I know who have been professionals for years are going out of business, because now everyone with a £100 compact camera is a professional.

I urge people to think about their actions. You may think that getting twenty cents for selling a picture is great, but you SHOULD be getting hundreds of dollars for each sale if your pictures are up to standard. And if they're not up to standard, then they shouldn't be for sale.

(Rant over).

Charlie - Military, stock and social photographer.

Little Charlie
I've posted several times that anyone interested should avoid macro sites. I've also advised on this thread that an image of only 6mp that needs cropped is unlikely to be of satisfactory quality to a reputable site.

I completely agree with almost everything you say but not about the contracts and media lawyers bit. I have some images on Photographers direct but I don't do models or specific properties so for me, model releases and property releases are unnecessary. For those interested in shooting models, or inside privately owned properties you are totally correct.

You are also completely correct in that everyone with a point and shoot (or as i call them "toys") considers themself good enough to sell images with it.
I've had a DSLR for around 5 years, and am on my 3rd one. I have around 160 images on PD.com and in around 2 years I've had one sale and a couple of enquiries that didn't come to anything.

Far too many people think it's as easy as pointing and shooting but wouldn't know what an aperture or fstop was if it slapped them in the face!

EDIT - I don't run a business from my photography so that's another reason I don't need contracts and media lawyers but appreciate that a company would be advisd to get one on board.

LittleCharlie

darich wrote: »

Little Charlie
I've posted several times that anyone interested should avoid macro sites. I've also advised on this thread that an image of only 6mp that needs cropped is unlikely to be of satisfactory quality to a reputable site.

I completely agree with almost everything you say but not about the contracts and media lawyers bit. I have some images on Photographers direct but I don't do models or specific properties so for me, model releases and property releases are unnecessary. For those interested in shooting models, or inside privately owned properties you are totally correct.

EDIT - I don't run a business from my photography so that's another reason I don't need contracts and media lawyers but appreciate that a company would be advisd to get one on board.

I absolutely disagree. Macro sites are the way forward. I started off tentatively putting images on microsites, then realized I was getting as little as 7 PENCE every time my picture sold. Now I'm with specialised traditional agencies and I'm getting hundreds every time a picture sells. Sure, I may not sell so many every day, but I'm getting what I'm worth.

You should have properly written license contracts and so forth even if you're not "a company". You think the big guys will care who they sue? In fact, you're more likely to get sued if you're a little part timer. I have lots of insurance to cover any claims against me... I suggest anyone else looking into picture sales does the same.

If I do window cleaning and drop a bucket on a member of the publics head, do you think they're not going to bring a case against me just because I'm a little part timer...

BTW, megapixels really have nothing to do with anything. I have pictures fom a 2.9MP camera that are better than my 10MP point and shoot that I keep in my handbag. It's about the sensor quality.

For UK general sellers Alamy is really the way forward. You'll get paid what you're worth.

And for anyone interested, the market is about to get VERY turbulent. Getty just bought out Jupiter images, which means that Getty now earns 1/3 of the microstock market (or possibly more if you go by $$$ value). This puts them in a strong position to turn the market BACK to the traditional market.

darich

LittleCharlie wrote: »

I absolutely disagree. Macro sites are the way forward. I started off tentatively putting images on microsites, then realized I was getting as little as 7 PENCE every time my picture sold. Now I'm with specialised traditional agencies and I'm getting hundreds every time a picture sells. Sure, I may not sell so many every day, but I'm getting what I'm worth.

LC - it seems i was getting my micro and macro mixed up. I have advised against selling images for a few pence per image. I completely agree that microsites are a rip off and never pay the photographer what the image is worth.
Macro sites on the other hand eg PhotographersDirect.com (of which I'm a member), Alamy, Getty etc all pay a more realistic or even negotiable fee for each image.
Apologies for the confusion.

And how can a large company sue me if they buy (or don't buy) an image from me?
I agree that companies can sue anyone regardless of size but since I'm the one selling the products and i own the copyright how can i be sued by a large company?
If i sell the same image twice when it shold be exclusive then yes i can be sued but i don't need a media lawyer to tell me that. And if my models and property owners give me signed release forms then I don't need lawyer for that either.

You genuinely believe that megapixels count for nothing? I agree that sensor quality is a huge factor - a 10mp compact is unlikely to be as good as an 8mp DSLR but to say that "megapixels really have nothing to do with anything" is fairly inaccurate.

NotQuiteNorbert

A get rich quick scheme would be brilliant- but I realise I'll probably never make much, if anything from my pictures. I like them, and the quality's good so I'd like to give it a go. I'm not calling myself a professional, before I get jumped on or anything.

I just want to know which sites are best for selling in terms of percentage I would receive, and also in terms of being viewed by a maximum number of potential buyers. Also, which would allow me to retain any rights I may have to my images?

I'm sorry if this makes little sense, but it's late and I'm feeling a bit scrambled.

Thanks.

chrisbur

NotQuiteNorbert wrote: »

A get rich quick scheme would be brilliant- but I realise I'll probably never make much, if anything from my pictures. I like them, and the quality's good so I'd like to give it a go. I'm not calling myself a professional, before I get jumped on or anything.

I just want to know which sites are best for selling in terms of percentage I would receive, and also in terms of being viewed by a maximum number of potential buyers. Also, which would allow me to retain any rights I may have to my images?

I'm sorry if this makes little sense, but it's late and I'm feeling a bit scrambled.

Thanks.

Have a look at

http://www.alamy.com/contributors/default.asp

The 65% goes down to 60% start of next year though.

Hawke_3

Does anyone know if one can still sell photos with Photobox? I can't seem to find anything about it on their new site.

madmalteaser

A great thread, lots of good advice. I'm very interested in joining PhotographersDirect.com but I'm worried about having to provide prints myself. Where is a good place to get good quality prints to sell at a reasonable price? This also goes for wanting to sell at craft fairs etc.

cbr_2

madmalteaser wrote: »

I'm very interested in joining PhotographersDirect.com but I'm worried about having to provide prints myself. .

My understanding about PDirect is you sell the image file not the print ?

As for prints for selling at markets/fairs etc, (which I do a lot of) I have mine done locally at Keynsham Photographic. They do provide an FTP service and they are very reasonable, but very good.

Colin.

darich

cbr wrote: »

My understanding about PDirect is you sell the image file not the print ?

As for prints for selling at markets/fairs etc, (which I do a lot of) I have mine done locally at Keynsham Photographic. They do provide an FTP service and they are very reasonable, but very good.

Colin.

Through PD.com you would sell either the digital file or the print - it would depend entirely on who wants to buy it.
I've sold a digital file through PD.com to a calendar in Germany - no way i'd have made that sale without the website.
I've also received requests for info from individuals for buying an image as a poster - as it turns out, they didn't buy but i could easily have been asked to send the print rather than the file.

For prints I almost always use Photobox. Good quality and good service.
I've used photodeal in the past but found the quality to be slightly poorer (although they were cheaper) and they've made mistakes on several orders. To their credit, they've rectified without hassle (whether it's a refund or re-print).
For smaller prints, snapfish, bonusprint seem to be quite competitive.
Colourmailer also do prints but I don't think i've used them in the past so can't say how or even if, they're any good.

cbr_2

darich wrote: »

Through PD.com you would sell either the digital file or the print - it would depend entirely on who wants to buy it.
.

Didn't realise that. Haven't sold anything through PD.com yet. I'm waiting on a few I've submitted for requests at the moment ;-)

Colin.