Selling photos online... official MoneySavingExpert.com discussion

nicksthename

From personal experience, having bought images from these types of sites for design purposes, I would say that you're unlikely to make any decent money at all from it. Virtually every image type I search for has thousands of choices, and doesn't really cost more than £5. Once the website takes it's cut I can't really see what's left...

me1jane

Darich, just wondering how you're getting on and how you're finding all of the sites? Have you generated any income yet?

PasturesNew

I used to run a worldwide microstock site and I can categorically state the following as I've been "the other side of the fence":
- if you're a good photographer, or can learn how to shoot for stock, you can make a good living from what appears to be pennies.
- on the site I worked for, the more you sold, the higher rates you could charge for your work
- some top photographers were already raking in £250k or more 4 years ago
- having reached some target levels, you could also offer exclusives for much higher rates, I've seen microstock selling on a large exclusive for over £1k
- some top photographers were contacted directly for commissions or variations of their basic work

To get to a decent level of income, sufficient to live on reliably, I'd recommend people learn to shoot for stock. Get 1000 images accepted. All photographers I saw earning good money had over 1000 images for sale. That could mean setting yourself a target of just 3 per day for a year. If you can't do 3 per day for a year, you're not a photographer

darich

me1jane wrote: »

Darich, just wondering how you're getting on and how you're finding all of the sites? Have you generated any income yet?

I didn't upload a large number of files so wasn't expecting a large income....but I've received nothing.
I got annoyed with at least 2 agencies who rejected images giving reasons such as "too heavily manipulated" or "not sharp", despite the exact samem images being accepted at other places....eg Alamy. So Fotolia and Dreamstime refused images that are already on Alamy. If they simply didn't want the images then it would have been better to say that.

I'm a member of a site where the public can buy canvases or prints of submitted images. I've made 3 sales since May 2010 from something like 40images. I know my images are good enough to sell and print large (someone bought a 60 x 40inch canvas of one of my shots). To be honest, my photography is more geared towards that market than stock.

I'll probably leave my images on the agency sites for just now but I doubt I'll add much more.

Thanks anyway!! :beer:

patman99

One thing with Alamy, they do sell a huge amount to magazines and for use on DVD covers.

Civitas

Hi all,
I just wondered how diverse the camera equipment was? What sort of camera bodies where being used along with the lens combinations?

Regards
Civi

funkycat06

jamlaw wrote: »

I admire you're sentiment here, budgetflyer, and agree that self-belief is a big stepping stone on the way to success. Lack of self-belief can be one of the biggest stumbling blocks to success.

However, I have to disagree with your insistance on having to buy an expensive/decent camera in order to produce good shots. I have spent the last few years improving my photography skills, and spending a lot of my time coresponding with a number of talented togs from around the world. One of the things I humbly learnt early on is that it's the person behind the camera that produces the stunning image, and not the expensive equipment he/she uses.

Although good equipment can make it easier to capture what you want, without that image, inspiration and talent (and the self-belief you mention) you will be unlikely to capture that great image. Some of the worlds most stunning images have been taken with the cheapest and most basic of equipment.

I mean no disrepect, my friend, but "the vision" is more important than the equipment. Good luck to everyone who's looking to sell their prints, regardless of how the image was captured.

James

with you on this,i have a smallish compact camera and people on deviantart etc have been surprised at the images i have managed to produce from it

darich

funkycat06 wrote: »

with you on this,i have a smallish compact camera and people on deviantart etc have been surprised at the images i have managed to produce from it

Also agree but with a caveat.
Having an expensive camera with more functions will allow you to take better shots that are not possible with a smaller camera such as
long exposure on a small camera will result in lots of noise.
poor quality lenses show up chromatic abberations and purple fringing
compacts with tiny sensors result in large depth of field which can be difficult to reduce.

Having said the above, a good photographer will take good photos with any camera, a poor photographer will always take poor photos even with a great camera.

chrisbur

As this thread is about selling pictures I would also add that many picture libraries will only accept pictures taken on their list of approved cameras, which of course tend to be the more expensive ones. As far as I recall none of the libraries who have a list of approved cameras have any compacts or bridge cameras on the list. If anyone wants to contribute to any of these libraries they will have to use an approved camera or their pictures will not be considered.
In the "old days" of film no-one knew what camera you used and you were judged on the quality of your pictures alone. I used fairly cheap Ricoh and Chinon SLRs fitted with a top quality lens to submit pictures, but now that I have gone digital I have to use a top quality Canon camera, and obviously still a top quality lens.

dazzer21

amyparr wrote: »

Hi everyone,

I'm currently training to be a solicitor and thought I'd pass on some advice in relation to legal issues and photography. I do some volunteer work for this organisation:

http://www.own-it.org/

They offer FREE advice to any budding artists etc (anything in the creative industries) in relation to copyright, trademarks, patents etc. You email them your query and they email you back with an answer. My law school works in partnership with them providing the manpower to answer all of the questions they get sent, and then all of the answers are checked by IP (Intellectual Property) law specialists in London.

They are a great organisation and I would definitely recommend visiting their site for advice before you sell any of your photos!

In relation to the query above about buildings, this is the answer on Own-It's website:

Q. I am a photographer/film maker and I take a photograph/make a film that includes a public sculpture in one of my photographs: do I have any defences to infringing copyright?
A. Assuming that the photograph does infringe copyright (see above Q&A) then you may be able to rely upon two main defences.
First, if the work you have recorded is a work of sculpture or a building on permanent public display you are within the law. However, you should take care that the work is permanent: a temporary work, such as Marc Quinn’s sculpture of Alison Lapper (“The Sphinx”) in Trafalgar Square, London, [2005] may not be considered permanent.
Second, if the work you have recorded (and this applies to all artistic works) is incidentally included in your work you may be within the law. However, your image must not trade off the artistic work it has copied.
xx

I've just posted an enquiry on this site and am waiting to see what the response is. In the meantime, I wonder if anyone else may have an answer to this? :

I want to sell some prints online. They are images of cars where the donor pic is actually an already existing photograph. The new pictures are EXTENSIVELY modified and any reference to the original photograph has been virtually eliminated (new backgrounds, scenarios, body colours, bodykits, tyresmoke, all that sort of thing...)

What potential copyright issues may there be regarding the initial use of the original picture? I have to say that it would be difficult to compare the before and after and say they were the same car...

...but as an extreme example, no matter how much addenda you might add to a Porsche 911, at the end of the day it's still a Porsche 911 as it's an iconic, instantly recognisable design. Could Porsche claim an infringement of copyright of their design if I wanted to sell a picture with a Porsche in it?

I have a site that the moment is not yet live; I am not yet selling as there is no pricing information and it's is currently parked on my personal webs pace and not in the general domain. (If it helps to see what I'm on about, PM me (or not, if it's against site rules))

When I can ascertain the situation, I can look around to get an idea as to where to park these things in order to make some (much needed!) money out of them...